Sorry but I must thoroughly disagree with that! Heathrow expansion has been a massive electoral issue in many constituencies, and was probably the key reason why the Tories came out against the third runway before the 2010 election (David Cameron's "no ifs, no buts" stance). It's also a key political issue in terms of London Mayoral (and Assembly) politics, and there's an election for the London Mayor and Assembly coming up in May '16.
Some MPs near Heathrow have made a big deal out of opposing expansion with varying degrees of success, most haven't and won't. So to repeat, at the risk of being boring, there are many more important issues on which seats will change hands. Heathrow expansion is not one of them.
As for the mayoralty, Goldsmith is a well known opponent, Khan is a flip-flopper: presently against, formerly in favour, and who knows what in six months. No other candidates matter. That election will probably be decided on housing or national issues.
I suspect those who have swallowed the BackHeathrow line have done so based on the simple expansion of the robust model that operates "as at today" with BA a "UK" airline continuing to shuttle pax and provide service to various UK domestic points !
Very nice and all very fluffy but not quite the reality of what may happen 10 years down the line !!!!!!!
I cannot for the life of me think that any of these groups are offering support for RW3 based on the wholesale change being promoted here.
Or the premise of BA pulling GLA, EDI, LBA, etc only to be replaced by the likes of BMI regional Flybe or EZY...
They won't be dancing in the streets of Auchtermuchty based on that notion !
Why do you assume that BA will be the only carrier on domestic if there are 3 rwys? There could be several, not just BA, VY and U2 (which has stated an intention to base 30 aircraft at LHR). Of course if thinner routes are started, carriers with smaller aircraft than A319s will be needed, maybe BD reg, BE, T3, who can say?
Why do you also assume that there would be only one carrier (BA) on domestic routes?
AND using the EZY model as a positive for expansion from T4 really does beggar belief. Yes 100% great for the consumer flying say Scotland to London ...and back ! Point to point all housed in one terminal but totally useless for domestic / long haul connectivity which is after all the primary basis on which this is being sold!
U2 doesn't do interlining so it does not matter. Any carrier on a feed arrangement with one or more long haul carriers may be co-sited. There may even be more UK carriers based at LHR, shock horror.
Expansion is so far into the future or never, so one can use imaginative thinking. Try it.
EZY will cherry pick prime routes "supposedly" some of these will almost crucially be those which make the whole "UK" hub concept viable, on the other hand it is of course possible they may even create a mini hub themselves "Inverness to Paris, is an example but that isn't Edinburgh to Melbourne via LHR on BA is it and that is after all what BackHeathrow are pumping out as the lead headline!
Providing a new runway just for routes such as JFK - Prague pax isn't really helping the UK !
And what of cost?
It's not only about JFK-PRG. It's for the present as much as the future. At present there is a need to eliminate the congestion.
At present aircraft landing have to stack, then on arrival have to wait to access the stand because it is still occupied. It is still occupied because the departing aircraft cannot even join the queue for take off because it's too long. Eventually the departing aircraft joins the queue and 20 minutes passes before it's in the air.
Then there's the issue of the elimination of the secondary slot market so that costs come down and carriers can access LHR. Consequently more destinations become available and fares come down.
Actually no, why do you assume everyone is so eager to use BA?
The long haul portion of the flight will be chosen by airline with the initial departure being from a local airport. I doubt anyone will care who provides the shuttle down to LHR and different airlines or alliances may use different carriers.
Indeed.
Tend to agree. Flybe does a good job in my experience on Manchester-Paris with 75 or 90 seaters codesharing with AF. No reason why it couldn't do the same to LHR with BA. Isn't that the way most hubs work in the US? In a more competitive LHR environment, will BA really want to be running its own spoke regional routes?
Yes, given the size of its smallest aircraft, BA would probably stick to the trunk routes(?).