Quote:
BA (and their parent IAG) are anti LHR R3 on grounds of cost.
It's actually more to do with protecting their dominant market position.
Posturing?
Like many things in life it's a double edged-sword. For BA, the increased airport charges will be offset (maybe more than offset) by savings in the costs of extra fuel required to queue up for take off and in holding patterns waiting to land. Costs associated with delays will be substantially reduced. Because of the size of its LHR operation this impacts on BA much more than on other carriers.
The
need to duplicate operations at LGW and LCY will be eliminated (although the business cases for some flights from there may remain).
Maybe, although the stated reason is cost.
Whether you find any other explanation or ulterior motive plausible or not depends on whether you believe the extra slots created will be taken up by Full Service carriers or the LoCos.
New slots are issued on a basis of 50% for incumbent carriers and 50% for new operators, so BA would be able to have a significant amount.
Once the eye-watering costs of slots and the difficulties of conducting operations at 100% capacity are eliminated, other full service and no frills carriers and holiday companies may well be interested, after all, Heathrow is surrounded by a rich catchment area. U2 has already stated that, with a third rwy, it will operate a base at Heathrow-4.
But none of this is a threat to Ringway in any way, despite what some posters on this thread may state.
AI to start MAN 2017? Apparently. Don't shoot the messenger!
Good. Is this in addition to the rumoured second service to BHX?