What I would like to see
1. Let LHR get on with its own market. Focus on developing new and re-instating routes from MAN
2. Focus on Northern Hub, using devolved transport powers to max.
3. Abolish HS2, it has no benefit to us; capacity on West Coast is plentiful can be increased at peak times with less first class, perhaps something between std/1st, longer platforms/trains.
4. Use HS2 money on improving existing terminals at MAN and its infrastructure.
5. Use HS2 money on northern rail & road improvements.
6. US pre-clearance is a good idea
ps its just my opinion
Brilliant,
gazza007, some common sense at last. Only take issue with no. 4: diverted HS2 funds should go to northern infrastructure (as you say in no. 5). Ringway shareholders or other private capital would have to finance airport infrastructure.
I strongly support MAN, but I just don't buy the idea that supporting MAN necessarily means opposing LHR. I don't think it helps our industry for one airport to be fighting another.
Exactly right, it doesn't!
Think that some of you may be missing the point.
1. Contrary to what some appear to believe, Ringway
IS a major UK gateway airport (along with Gatwick). Heathrow is not, it is the UK’s only
hub airport.
2. Airlines’ fare charging policies are not in the gift of the government, the Airports Commission, Heathrow and Ringway managements, holiday companies, travel agencies or anyone else. The days where IATA set the fares, first class was double the economy fare, and fares were the same on all IATA-member carriers (which was most of them) are long gone.
Most carriers charge more for direct/non-stop flights than for indirect, especially those that specialise in transferring pax at their hubs (EK, EY, KL, QR, SQ, etc.). So if MAN-LHR-elsewhere is cheaper than MAN-elsewhere, don’t be surprised.
3. While there is plenty of capacity in the entire London airports
system (six airports), it’s not at the hub airport, where it’s desperately needed. Heathrow operates at 100% of its capacity and is more than full. Clearly it does need two more rwys.
4. Events at Heathrow do not impact on Ringway as much as some may think. Apparently, there are thirty or so carriers that want to start Heathrow routes. They either can’t obtain slots (at very specific times in the case of longhaul operators), can’t afford those that are available, or both.
These carriers are not rushing to Ringway, and just a handful opt for the Gatwick "waiting room". Most go to the other three main European hubs, a loss to the UK as a whole. Heathrow expansion would end this nonsense. Also bear in mind that most of the carriers at Ringway are also at Heathrow (holiday airlines and no frills carriers excepted).
5. The Airports Commission was set up for one purpose only - to conceal a coalition split. The Conservatives have changed their mind about Heathrow, the Libdems haven’t. Its remit is to kick the ball into the long grass. That is why it cannot report its findings before the election. It is as simple as that.
6. EK is very well entrenched at Ringway. Allegedly most Ringway longhaul pax are using Dubai rather than Heathrow to change aircraft. It is a possibility that having to take on such a well-established carrier (what is it 2 A380s plus a B777 everyday?) could be a deterrent to new potential longhaul carriers that may wish to offer non-stop/direct links to their hubs. It is what is known as the incumbency factor.
This does not mean it cannot be done, but clearly some effort will be needed to attract new carriers. It’s worked very well with CX, for example, and there’s the possibility of a mainland China carrier.
7. Heathrow expansion is privately financed and, in the very unlikely event of permission being granted, there will be some "planning gain" (contribution to public funds for infrastructure improvements), there always is.
The western rail link goes ahead irrespective of expansion and a southern rail link will also be needed, again, irrespective of expansion. So the contribution will be towards motorway/road diversions and tunnels. As for Transport For London, a mouthpiece for Boris, its involvement will be minimal: it’s mostly Network Rail and the Highways Agency.
The costs are unknown, and those against expansion will obviously conflate the figures and fool the gullible. It should go without saying!
8. Compare like with like, to finance the much needed rail infrastructure that is needed in the North, including an east-west intercity-standard rail line between the large cities, scrap HS2 and spend that money in the North.
Contrary to what its supporters say, HS2
WILL suck economic activity to London. It happened in France and Japan, both countries with high speed rail and a very large and dominant capital city. So why would it be any different here in the UK?
Hope this helps.