Sorry Frank
This is rhetoric - What is the real evidence especially through Heathrow and with relation to the London markets - One of the top 3 on the planet.
Again what are these LHR routes that survive ONLY because of connections.
Names please.
Probably commercially sensitive information for each carrier, but could speculate: most of the north American routes apart from the major cities, ditto European routes, most african routes. Additionally, BLR, HYD, MAA, MEX are often mentioned. Judging by the way BA shifts some routes between terminals, maybe the routes depending on connections vary over time and possibly seasons. The point is that the presence of these routes benefits O&D pax.
The carriers are housed together (in the main) for alliance convenience not disputed.
Only necessary and convenient if there is a significant amount of transferring pax.
Frank also noted and stated with reference to the ONLY EU HUB that come close to the US model and yes that is Amsterdam .
Wrong again, did not mention "EU hub" or "US model". Just made the comparison between LHR and AMS for numbers of transfer pax.
It might be quicker to name those routes that could survive unscathed if 35% of their passengers, on average, disappeared.
Indeed, though did a little speculation above.
Extricating any Government investment in The North is like pulling teeth compared to monies seen as a given in the South East. We may get all watery eyed when the relative pitence of a few million is spent on the Manchester – Leeds railway line but it is as nothing to the billions signed off on a whim for projects down South.
That said, If as reported the Government are not prepared to bank roll the surrounding infrastructure it will be somewhat academic.
Despite being obviously correct on the need for more spending in the north, you are always selective with the information, Bagso. You never mention that infrastructure projects in and around London are part funded by business rates supplements and/or by the "mayoral community levy", plus, in the case of rail, much higher fares generally. This is
not the case in the rest of the UK. Also ratepayers in Greater London will be paying a precept for the Olympics for the next 50 years.
If there is a suspicion of “smoke and mirrors” and LHR does indeed have to pay for earthworks beyond the M25 I’m not sure where that leaves the project anyway. HAL might have a seemingly endless pot of money but would that extend to what is currently an unaccounted budget figure of a min’ £5Bn on roads /rail etc OR like a few us do they think these costs might fall into an open ended bottom less pit, hence the CEOs insistence on getting the Government to fully underwrite this particular part of the project ? ….oh not forgetting that extra £500m heading North of the border !
Scots telling the English what to do….no wonder The Daily Mail is so exercised.
Heathrow management has the money to invest (or can attract it) and it will bring returns over time and well over the initial outlay, so this is a very good business proposition.
As for the "earthworks" on the M25, this will be required anyway, as will similar be required on the M60, when traffic reaches a certain level. All that won't happen without a third rwy is the tunnel. The A4 tunnels will happen because even without a third rwy the airport has to expand accross the A4, for LHR-6 for example, which will be needed when LHR-3 is demolished and not rebuilt.
The rail infastructure improvements will go ahead anyway as people need to be encouraged onto public transport, third rwy or not, and rail travellers other than airline pax and airport workers will benefit.
As for the SNP MPs, they now have some leverage, of course they'll use it! especially as all this
appearance of "standing up for Scotland" cleverly diverts attention from the "horlicks" being made at by the Holyrood government.
..and the soon to be announced MAN route by AI cancelled, but hey, LHR expansion will be good for regional airports
[MAN's (and LBA's) links with the subcontinent are with Pakistan not India, so there's not enough O&D for a MAN-DEL route. What little there is would be very low yield VFR and that travels with EK. There was never a question of a MAN-DEL route. A business/commercial MAN-BOM route might just possibly be a different matter, but don't hold your breath.
As for AI, it gets plenty of O&D and low yield VFR on BHX-DEL, which is doing well. Had wrongly predicted that AI would mess it up and had to eat my hat as a consequence, the hat tasted good.
Airlines that sell their LHR slots are generally those in the "last chance saloon". Airlines who have been unable (or unwilling) to adapt to the new era of competition, who's backers have basically given up on them, and have therefore resorted to selling off the family silver to try and stay afloat. In LHR's case think Pan Am, TWA, Cyprus Airways, Balkan, Malev, BMI - anyone remember them ? They all sold off or leased out LHR slots in their later years, and the rest is history.
Another source of slots is from airlines who have worked out they can make more money from leasing out their slots to another airline, instead of operating their own flights with them. A fairly recent example there would be Qantas who lease out at least two pairs of LHR slots to another airline (can't remember which - either BA or Emirates maybe ?). SAS has recently been selling LHR slots, as did Air Serbia (formerly JAT).
Exactly, it's called the "secondary slot market" and based on demand outstripping supply. It keeps many carriers out of LHR to the detriment of most. A third rwy would eliminate this nonsense.