fairdealfrank … Thankyou for your response. My reply to you won't be terribly controversial, as I am in agreement with about 90% of what you wrote. Just afew points merit clarification, however.
We can’t assume that LHR will have sunk to sixth place any more than we can assume it will be in first.
As the saying goes: forecasting is notoriously difficult, especially when it concerns the future. All we can offer is our best educated guess, as indeed must the infrastucture planners. In this case, I have based my speculation upon the fact that LHR's passenger growth is limited to what can be delivered by the continuing trend towards using larger aircraft types. LHR's rivals can in many cases accept a considerable increase in ATM's from an already high base. Some of these airports are already starting to encourage use by no-frills carriers such as EZY/RYR/NAX/WZZ which offer the potential to significantly grow their throughput going forward. LHR cannot provide similar access. Thus I see less-constrained competitors pulling well ahead based upon a twenty year timeframe. The driver here is not underlying potential demand, but LHR's physical inability to service it. Of course, we are always prone to experience severe turbulence in the wider global economy and "black swan" events always have the potential to derail even the best forecasts regardless.
One has to follow the money, if Heathrow’s long term future is so dire, it’s unlikely that billions of private money would be going into infrastructure improvements on the airport. Two new terminals are the current examples.
I do not consider LHR's future 'dire'. Quite the contrary. But I do doubt the site's ability to accommodate significant growth above the commendably high plateau already achieved. From my perspective, the investment you cite is required to service LHR's existing throughput of around 72.5 million pax per annum. The original T1/T2/T3 arrangement in particular was well past its use-by date. Replacement was essential. The new projects sustain the viability of LHR's current operation and on that basis represent money well spent. 72.5+ million ppa is a world-class performance worth protecting.
In 20 years time aircraft will be even cleaner and quieter than today.
Entirely agree. It is profoundly regrettable that the industry is doing such a poor job of getting the message out there that today's airliners have already progressed so much. Some BANANA's are wilfully acting as if we're still in an era of VC10's and Tridents. Add to your statement the fact that aircraft will be SAFER too.
LHR is getting into the top 10 best airports these days.
I attach no credence to surveys of this nature, and I say that even as MAN has just won one such quality award. The respondent sample is simply too diverse to offer any worthwhile insights. How many of those voting have experienced even 10% of the airports under consideration? Even then, there are too many variables. A customer using LHR T5 will enjoy a wholly different experience than his T3 counterpart. Those who transfer between terminals will have a very different impression again.
Sometimes one's impression of an airport comes right down to luck on the day. Take my most recent experience via MAN T3: significant delay outbound due to refuelling issues at the allocated stand. And the homeward flight: through the entire arrivals process and outside within 10 minutes … flawless. So how might I vote in a quality survey? Multiply this across the spectrum of conditions which customers experience transiting any major airport and the whole voting process becomes a lottery.
These survey-based award ceremonies provide a nice social evening out for the suits, but I would not refer to them as any reliable guide to the true airport experience.
Looking at LHR specifically, I agree that T5 is a quality product. I have yet to experience 'new' T2. For me, LHR's challenges concern transfers (particularly those requiring a switch of terminals), and the slow and surly duplicated security checks endured by passengers who have just alighted from an already security-screened flight. Beyond the terminal infrastructure, the high incidence of domestic flight cancellations due to the fully-subscribed runways remains a major issue.
but would like to see MAN included in the list of up and coming airports.
I too hope to see MAN enjoy a thriving future. However, my list in this case concerned airports which would be leading choices as a hub interchange. Whilst MAN has a limited role to play in this respect (as demonstrated by FlyBe and envisioned by Thomas Cook Airlines), MAN is simply too peripheral from a geographical perspective to serve as a major hub. It is simply too far from the centre of Europe. MAN is also hampered as a hub by not having a single dominant home-based carrier. Future growth at MAN will depend overwhelmingly on servicing the needs of passengers originating and terminating their journeys within its own catchment area. MAN does, of course, benefit from having particularly good ground transport access especially by rail.
By the way, I learn alot from these civilised exchanges of views and ideas as well. IMO, more reasoned and researched discussion is far preferable to the soundbites, backbiting and silly name-calling sometimes seen elsewhere. I particularly cringe when I read posters who denounce others for daring to discuss "bad news". I admire the moderators for doing a very tough job, often called upon to regulate discussion topics which are of zero interest to them personally. But these threads do positively interest their intended core audience. I hope they note the generally courteous interaction on the MAN thread. There is a core of constructive contributors drawing in healthy discussion on here. Hopefully we Manchester AA&R regulars are a net positive in driving site traffic volume which the PPRuNe advertisers will appreciate.
PS. How do you get your quote grabs to appear inside those neat blue boxes? Dumb question, I know. Give me a plane over a computer anyday.