Ah Skip glad you are still with us.
My remarks seemed plausible as BA would simply see there market share diminished, so little enthusiasm in that area.
Flybe mentioned Northolt so they seem lukewarm as well do they not ?
Not so, BA would be entitled to a share of the new slots: it’s 50% to incumbents and 50% to new entrants. Some of the new entrants may be smaller carriers offering feeder flights on thin routes, this benefits BA (and other incumbent carriers) as well.
Clearly BE wants to tap into the rich catchment area of the Thames Valley, something it cannot do at LCY, LGW or STN. As LHR is not currently available to BE, it makes sense for it to want to start an operation at NHT to take advantage of this. If/when the LHR situation changes, the NHT operation could shift there.
"Leadership requires courage"
"well - a bold decision will probably cost you your job, a brave decision will cost you the next election" - Sir Humphrey Abbleby
Ah, a man who really knew how to run the country!
LGW has already proved itself by evolving to become the busiest single-runway commercial airport in the world.
Which is the busiest 2-runway commercial airport in the world?
Hub transfer traffic is a bonus, a luxury which should only be pursued if the cost of doing so makes economic sense. The cost basis for expanding LHR to this end is absolutely prohibitive (for reasons amply discussed earlier in this thread). The capacity which is truly essential is that serving indigenous demand from Southern England itself, and LGW can address that need at a far lower cost than LHR in terms of both finance and disruption.
The point about hub traffic is that it makes the difference between a route being viable or not. A route that is not viable solely with point to point pax, may well become viable with the addition of transfer traffic.
This applies equally on a thin route to/from a domestic regional airport as on new routes to/from developing and expanding markets which are vital for future trade links.
I don't think that the Government will sit on this for two long, they know they need to get all the difficult stuff cleared within a 2 year span, most people forget about what happened 3 years ago or who was to blame, Boris & Zac are problems for sure.
It is said (for obvious reasons) that difficult decisions are best made in the first year of Parliament. Perhaps the decision should be made on a busy news day, or over the summer recess.
A lot is argued from the local MPs re. Residents inconvenienced by noise, congestion etc.. Well, surely common sense would tell you if you decide to live near the World's busiest airport, it is likely to grow. Offer compensation and their tune suddenly changes!
Yes you would think so! Not only are the majority of residents, incuding the NIMBYs, fully aware of the presence of a major airport and the implications thereof.
Recent arrivals pay a hell of a lot of dosh for the "priviledge" of living under the flight path, as house prices are so expensive.
Why would they do this if it is so awful as some imply?!
Gatwick would only have worked if a second large UK carrier existed in competition to BA, with worldwide alliance partners providing connectivity eg. Star Alliance - but the chance of this has long gone since BA swallowed up the competition (BUA/B Cal, Dan Air, BMi), although they were never the size to dominate a second hub, as the likes of AA, Delta & UA do in the States.
Actually, no. It was tried in the days when the government ran everything aviation-related. A sucession of LGW-based carriers went bust, and being bought by BA saved jobs.
BTW, BD was never at LGW, and VS survived
only because it moved to LHR.
It works in the USA (JFK and EWR) because they are huge domestic hubs with a few (relatively speaking) international flights tagged on. So it's not comparable with LHR/LGW in any way.
Or how about moving the capacity elsewhere in the country. If APD was reduced for Birmingham and Manchester the airlines would soon follow the money. The astronomic cost of any additional London runway would cover a massive reduction in APD and probably a load of advertising overseas..
Why? the airlines don’t pay the APD, they just collect it on behalf of the government.
Airlines "following the money" means following their business/premium pax and that means LHR. Simple as.
I'd buy into that if AA and BA weren't so insistent on the need for practically hourly shuttles to JFK. If the regions have to make do with a daily service, then LHR should make do with 4 or 5 A380s. The freed up slots can then be used for the "new and emergent markets". And given this is NATIONAL boost, don't forget that when someone sneezes at LHR, BA decide to wipe out the domestic links. A surefire way to help the UK's regions, don't you think?
Even if this was possible and/or desirable, by re-using the slots on other routes, you are not addressing the problem of LHR operating at 100% capacity. The delays (and the consequent waste of fuel and pollution) to take off and land continue.
Only a third rwy addresses this, allowing "hourly shuttles to JFK" to continue, as demanded by business; allowing flights to the "new and emergent markets";
and allowing thinner routes to smaller regional airports to be restored.
The maglev doesn't serve Shanghai. It arrives in some random neighbourhood far from any international hotels or downtown. It's pointless. A good example of why it's important to plan properly before spending billions on infrastructure.
Indeed, it stops above a metro station a few miles from Shanghai centre. It’s more of a tourist attraction then a serious bit of transport infrastructure.