HEATHROW

[FlyingEagle21]

Has anyone mentioned this idea yet? Completely nuts.

The Policy Exchange, which says it is a leading think tank to deliver a stronger society and a more dynamic economy (nothing about care of the environment) have put forward a proposal to expand Heathrow, by building 4 new runways. And moving the existing two a mile or two to the west, on top of the M25. Then there would be a two more runways, one parallel to each of the shifted runways. The Policy Exchange then says that if this cannot be built, 4 runways could be be built at Luton instead. They claim around 700 properties (in Poyle) would need to be demolished compared to the 1,400 that would need to go to make way for the estuary airport, and its purpose would be to send a “much needed signal to people that Britain is open for business.” They dismiss the problem of carbon emissions by presuming that all homes in the UK will be insulated, so leaving fossil fuel for transport – and that travelling is much more appealing so we can “have the money and carbon allocation to see the world.” A very odd report, with some very dubious logic ….. and contorted arguments.

[Skipness One Echo]

Heathrow East/Terminal 2 | Heathrow Airport | London | U/C - Page 32 - SkyscraperCity

Seems T2B has been postponed due to uncertainty over the future of LHR.

[PAXboy]

FlyingEagle21 This is featured in: http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airpo...happen-12.html
starting about #260 I think it is. Of all the cock-a-mamie schemes put forward, this is very smart. I'm not joking. Of course, it won't get built but as a way to maximse the existing site? Clever. but, as I say (all to often, I know) its doesn't matter about R3 or any other scheme now, as it's already way too late. The traffic has and is moving Eastwards.

[Windsorian]

Re-distribution of Heathrow's flights

The growth in flights from Europe to the East has nothing to do with lack of capacity at Heathrow; there is a simple geographic answer in the fact that China, India, SE Asia are all to the East of Europe.

Meanwhile there are 191 weekly flights ( > 9,000 per annum) from Heathrow to New York; with the slow introduction of the A380 there is plenty of potential for some of the New York flights to be re-allocated to the growing East.

[DaveReidUK]

Sounds of furious backpedalling by the Coalition after the Aviation Minister appeared to make a commitment at the AOA conference yesterday that the Goverment would back and implement the findings of the Airports Commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies, when it reports in 2015.

Though that's not necessarily saying a great deal - it's now seven weeks since the commission was announced, but neither its terms of reference nor details of who the other members are have yet been announced.

[TSR2]

Sounds of furious backpedalling by the Coalition

Can't think why I am I not surprised.

[Skipness One Echo]

with the slow introduction of the A380 there is plenty of potential for some of the New York flights to be re-allocated to the growing East.

The reallocation of a handful of slots is not a strategic solution, especially given that means replacing a money maker with a loss making start up.

[Windsorian]

The reallocation of a handful of slots is not a strategic solution, especially given that means replacing a money maker with a loss making start up.

I'm not suggesting fewer passengers, just questioning whether New York really needs an average of 27 daily flights from Heathrow, at a time when there is a claimed shortage of slots to new destinations; there is plenty of opportunity for the existing slots to be used more efficiently.

Fully agree that all the new 21 business destinations listed in the BAA commissioned report may not be commercially viable. That is why work on the Heathrow "Toast Rack" must continue and the new A380 stands used for maximum effect as ever increasing numbers of these aircraft are introduced.

[DaveReidUK]

I'm not suggesting fewer passengers, just questioning whether New York really needs an average of 27 daily flights from Heathrow, at a time when there is a claimed shortage of slots to new destinations; there is plenty of opportunity for the existing slots to be used more efficiently.

So, other than market forces, what mechanism do you envisage being used to produce a more "efficient" distribution of slots vs routes ?

[Dannyboy39]

Whenever I go transatlantic (on BA), especially UK-bound, the aircraft are rarely full in economy. Don't know what its like in business/first, but if they fill these cabins, they couldn't care less about the load in the back.

Kudos to British Airways for making difficult decisions on high profile routes. A lot of speculation regarding the Kangaroo route. If it isn't making money, don't run the service - simple business sense. I wish equally high profile carriers (especially in the USA) would do the same thing.

[Windsorian]

So, other than market forces, what mechanism do you envisage being used to produce a more "efficient" distribution of slots vs routes ?

Personally I think there are several :-

1. BAA should be told that in the short to medium term that there will be no R3 at Heathrow, no full mixed mode and no more night flights; instead they should concentrate on their "Toast Rack" rebuilding. In order to restore confidence, BAA must be assured the government has absolutely no intention at any time of closing Heathrow.

2. In the short term the use of larger more fuel efficient aircraft must be encouraged to accommodate the expected growth in passenger numbers; this will free up some slots for new destinations.

2. In the medium term the government should encourage the development of competing hub airports, both in the SE and nationally. The reason the Competition Commisssion ordered BAA to sell Gatwick, Stansted and either Glasgow or Edinburgh was to increase competition between the airports and was ruled to be in the public interest.

4. There should be positive discrimination in favour of implementing the Competition Commission ruling in terms of the timing of the construction of new runways. Also there should be a government priority for introducing reciprocal 5th Freedom rights to airports allowing them to operate as virtual hub airports.

5. It is the introduction of genuine competition between competing hubs that will encourage the development of flights to new destinations and cause the Heathrow airlines to consider re-allocating some existing slots.

[DaveReidUK]

Sorry, but I don't see how any of those strategies is going to cause airlines to open up new routes from Heathrow if that necessitates (as it would) reducing frequency on existing, profitable routes.

In the short term the use of larger more fuel efficient aircraft must be encouraged to accommodate the expected growth in passenger numbers; this will free up some slots for new destinations.

As traffic grows on existing routes, of course airlines will use larger aircraft - but not at the expense of frequency.

[cumbrianboy]

Hey, apologies if I've missed this but where is the report which details the 21 business destinations? I'd be interested to read it

Thanks.

[WHBM]

Appears to be 27 destinations actually

http://www.aef.org.uk/downloads/Busi...August2011.pdf

[Windsorian]

Hey, apologies if I've missed this but where is the report which details the 21 business destinations? I'd be interested to read it

This is the report I was thinking about, published September 2011 :-

http://www.frontier-economics.com/_l...r%20growth.pdf

However it needs qualifying as the main IAG connection to South America is, and is likely to remain (for historical & language reasons) Madrid; this may be a stop-over for flights from Heathrow.

Also identifying possible routes does not guarantee their economic success; a slow start up of say one flight a week may be necessary to test the water; time will tell !

[Windsorian]

As traffic grows on existing routes, of course airlines will use larger aircraft - but not at the expense of frequency.

I fully respect there will be differing opinions; this is what the Davies Commission has been asked to resolve. However it must be noted that today Heathrow airlines fly to fewer destinations than before T5 was built.

Also the recent Policy Exchange report claims the immediate effect of a Heathrow R3, is that IAG and Virgin will move their existing Gatwick services to Heathrow; this mirrors what has already happened after T5 opened.

I think the real danger of an early R3 is that the existing Heathrow airlines will decant their small aircraft to the new short runway; but new airlines will not gain access to long haul slots at Heathrow due to "a shortage of terminal capacity" at the existing terminals. Also the existing airlines will lay claim to any new slots on a R3 after they have completed their decantation.

I think it really comes down to whether there should be a single or multiple UK hubs; this is where the Competition Commission comes in and the Davies Commission must decide.

[Libertine Winno]

My opinion, for what its worth, is that the UK cannot sustain 2 separate hubs. Reason being that those countries that do (Germany with Frankfurt and Munich, NYC with JFK and Newark) are able to do so for reasons that are absent in the UK.

Germany (Lufthansa) is able to run two hubs because both Munich and Frankfurt are viable to do so, Frankfurt because of its finance economy and Munich because of its economy and its location far further East to take advantage of traffic. The UK does not have a similar advantage, with the likes of Manchester or Birmingham not benefitting from location nor a big enough economical base to justify a hub.

In NYC, both Newark and JFK are the hub airports for two different national long haul carriers (United at Newark and American at JFK). However, both of the UK's long haul carriers (BA and Virgin) are hubbed at LHR. London certainly has the economy and demand for two competing hubs, but it would take either BA or Virgin to move all operations to a two-runway LGW which shows absolutely no sign of happening.

[Windsorian]

Easyjet: Gatwick - Moscow

Seems that Branston is in a pickle over the CAA decision to allow EasyJet to fly from Gatwick to Moscow :-

Virgin Atlantic slams CAA ruling on Bmi Moscow routes - www.travelweekly.co.uk

I presume that EasyJet will not be able to fill two daily aircraft simply with point to point passengers from Gatwick's catchment area; which suggests the CAA are thinking about some transfer passengers and Gatwick's development as a hub in competition to Heathrow.

This appears to re-inforce the 2009 Competition Commission ruling that BAA's ownership of 3 London airports was not in the public interest; it will be interesting to see what the CAA tell the Davies Commission of their thoughts of where (if any) additional SE runways should be built.

[LGS6753]

Aeromexico

Aeromexico has announced it will launch flights between Heathrow and Mexico City from 14 December. The airline will fly three times a week from Heathrow’s Terminal 4 and will offer connecting flights throughout Mexico including Puerto Vallarta, Los Cabos, Guadalajara and others. For inbound passengers the airline will use its SkyTeam partners to broaden its connections throughout Europe, Africa and the Middle East.
“The beginning of operations between Mexico and London is a great achievement for all of us who work at this airline, as this destination is very important to the national economy and several key sectors that will also
benefit from this new connection,” said Andres Conesa

[Gonzo]

FlightPathOBN,

Regardless of RECAT, we don't use visual separation when there is a wake turbulence separation requirement. In the UK the only cases where ATC leave wake turbulence separation to the discretion of the following crews in on approach, when the following aircraft is following the visual flight rules (VFR), in which case ATC would advise of the recommended spacing.

Can you explain more about what you mean regarding ops being IMC? IMC/VMC refer only to the current weather conditions. Ops into LHR follow IFR, but that could be in IMC or VMC. As far as operations are concerned, it makes no difference what the weather conditions are until you get down to a cloud base of 200ft or visibility of 600m (approximately!).