Article in today's Financial times interesting read...sorry can't post the link.
5% growth for man, however lagging behind both GLA and EDI with 13.7 and 9.1 % growth. Still the future is looking good at Manchester. Would be nice to see some of the routes talked about starting, filling some missing holes in the Man network.
Both GLA and EDI are starting from much lower pax numbers, so MAN remains the UK's third busy airport, and needs to keep up the good work.
LHR R3 - MAN can stand on it's own two feet. LHR needs a 3rd Runway.
Indeed it does, and a fourth as well, but it looks like pigs will fly first.
Lady from Liverpool Uni. Doing a great Job pushing her Uni. Most students via LHR, then train or shuttle via MAN I guess. Growth in China, guess who gets direct China links next year? Liv promotion Uni guys on tours in Asia have shown MAN as nearest Intl airport. Bagso, you need to send her flowers not put her down.
Very true, and with Ringway going from strength to strength, it looks very mean-spirited of those who have been Speke-bashing of late!
The clamour for runway 3 is I believe based on connectivity using the current model with BA and its connections to the regions.
No, it's about addressing the problems of an airport operating at 100+% capacity as well.
Connectivity to the regions; the need for more destinations (especially longhaul) and links to the new emerging markets; finding room for the unnamed thirty or so carriers that allegedly wish to operate to/from Heathrow; allowing carriers in the waiting room at Gatwick to move accross; the elimination of chronic congestion and delays; the ending of the secondary slot market; addressing issues of supply and demand; providing for the wishes of pax and carriers who always prefer Heathrow; providing more opportunities for connecting pax by enabling thin routes to be viable (both domestic and longhaul); these are all part of the mix.
A number of posters on the LHR thread have suggested,somewhat flippantly in my view, this could quite easily be replaced by EZY, Flybe or BMIR should BA be squeezed out or retract to long haul. Maybe it could but I'm not sure that is what the current supporters of Heathrow 3 have signed up for.
As one of the posters, let me clarify the above mis-information, this is what was actually written (note the use of the words "
could" and "
maybe" in the text):
"
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?"
"
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."
All this is speculation obviously, but the balance of probability could favour this scenario.
There seems to be two conflicting views that with three rwys at Heathrow, (1) BA would be the only carrier on BA domestic, and (2) BA won't do any domestic.
We know this is wrong as U2 has clearly stated (in evidence to Davis) that with 3 rwys at LHR, it will base 30 aircraft there and operate several shorthaul routes including domestic.
So at least two carriers on some domestic routes could be possible. The glass is half full.
Genuine question, given IAG don't want LHR opened up to competition anymore than BA wanted VS or BR at LHR at all, and also given Willie Walsh publically saying he doesn't see it happening and even if it does he thinks the price is too high, (Shed is at one with the man) and also any new regional connections would at most be < 20 rotations max, how does that drive a business case for a whole new runway? It's a political argument not a business case, I think. The money to pay for any new tarmac won't be made in a cut throat domestic market.
Clearly it is a double-edged sword for BA.
Potential greater competition is a negative, obviously.
However, the end of the problems and considerable expense of chronic congestion and the endless disruption, plus the advantage of being able to expand without having to spend millions on slots (or on carriers in order to obtain slots), are all positives.
Even with expansion, BA still has many advantages as a long standing incumbent at Heathrow and can have a healthy proportion of the new slots.
Also don't forget that new longhaul routes will need feeders, some will not be viable without it.