HEATHROW

[Windsorian]

BA have no wish to move all LGW short haul to LHR.

Last week BAA called on the Davies Commission to seriously consider the Policy Exchange proposal for a 4 runway Heathrow; this surprisingly well informed document of pro-LHR propaganda, makes clear the effect of even a R3 is BA & Virgin will move all their operations back to LHR.

The trouble with BAA and BA is no-one believes what they say anymore which is why they now spend so much money paying for "independent" reports to support their claims.

it is not a shortage of capacity in the South East. It is a squeeze on hub connectivity at LHR.

There is no shortage of capacity at NHT which as far back as 1952 operated 50,000atms; if there is really an immediate need for additional runway capacity why don't you go for it ? As I have explained, with a bit of "can do" attitude you could have it up and running within 12 months; instead the official LHR saboteurs are intent on creating unnecessary problems to prevent it happening.

There is a fair amout of spare capacity at LGW, really there is.

Another misleading quote from yourself as we all know there is a serious structural imbalance between summer and winter traffic figures; this is the result of years of mis-management under BAA's ownership.

However under the new owners (GIP etc) there has been a steady improvement; there was a comment about this in last weeks parliamentary debate on regional connectivity. And it is LGW's new owners who want a R2 after 2019 in order to compete fairly as a hub airport in their own right.

STN under the continuing dead hand of BAA remains a basket case; however the Competition Commission have won in the courts and BAA will have to sell it next year. In time we will know if the new owners will also want a R2; it will be interesting to see how much BAA get in their enforced fire sale.

The expensively rekindled debate on a R3 & R4 at LHR smacks of desparation by BAA / IAG to get in quick before the new owners of LGW & STN get their houses in order. Hopefully the Competition Commission will insist they are allowed a fair chance to develop hub status without interference from the LHR bully boys.

R3 is nothing more than a dogs dinner and not a long term solution

The remit of the Davies Commission is to decide if, when and how airport capacity in the UK is allowed to develop in the short, medium and long term. Hopefully the British sense of fair play will ensure expensive bullying by the LHR companies is not allowed to prevent a level playing field.

[Skipness One Echo]

Sir, you are beyond naive.
You seriously think the solution is tents and busses from Northolt?
May I genuinely ask what your background and expertise is?

I am a marketing analyst, I work with numbers which model how people behave. What modelling has ever suggested people would use a half baked tent city at Northolt?
Also when have BA ever suggested moving all of LGW to LHR? T5 can't even fit the current LHR operation. Added to the fact that certain markets do better from LGW than LHR, my screnario of all long haul moving to LHR is possible. I gave you the numbers, they're not huge. Yet your plan is for "small planes" at Northolt.

Again how does this work?
Do KLM ERJ190s have to use Norholt?
No Skyteam lounge access for those flights?
Can Brussels Airlines use A320s to Terminal 1 but forced to send RJ100s to Northolt?
What's the minimum connecting time Northolt to T5?
How does that compare to AMS/CDG/FRA in a competitve market?
How does your plan affect BA?

Can you link to a document suggesting BA want to move short haul LGW into LHR in part or whole?

Go on, have a go at answering that Silver.

[DaveReidUK]

Can you link to a document suggesting BA want to move short haul LGW into LHR in part or whole?

Now don't be silly - our hero never lets the facts get in the way of a good argument.

The Policy Exchange report actually says

"It is easy to imagine, for example, that British Airways and Virgin will consider consolidating some or all of their services from Heathrow, by reducing or eliminating their Gatwick operations."

No authority is cited for this statement in the report (sound familiar?), so for the purpose of Windsorian's case, it is transformed into

this surprisingly well informed document of pro-LHR propaganda, makes clear the effect of even a R3 is BA & Virgin will move all their operations back to LHR.

Hmmmm.

[Windsorian]

Remembrance Sunday

Go on, have a go at answering that Silver

Personally I'm off to the local service; perhaps you could give it (the insults) a rest for 1 minute at 11.00am.

[Libertine Winno]

This is all descending into lunacy now.

LHR should aim to remain THE hub airport of choice in Europe well into the middle of this century and beyond.

To propose that the best way of doing that is to put tents up at a military airfield 6 miles away and bus people between sites, or link to another airport 30 miles away suggests, in my opinion, at best a distinct lack of knowledge on what LHR needs to achieve or at worst, sheer delusion.

[ManofMan]

Personally I'm off to the local service; perhaps you could give it (the insults) a rest for 1 minute at 11.00am.

What on earth has Skipness's alleged name calling got to do with 11--11--11 ?? He absolutely pasted beyond belief any point you put across, you try and deflect from this by bringing in the 11th...disgusting.

Hang your head in shame o un-knowledgable one.

[jabird]

Seconded.

But LHR-CDG, LHR-ORY and LHR-BRU are still there. / These flights also provide pax from in and around Paris and Brussels to take advantage of the LHR hub.

so flights are still necessary

Err, unlike Windsorian, who is just wasting everyone's time with his airport camp Northolt idea, I think I actually agree with you on this one!

I will put across the reasons why trains are attracting more passengers, but I am a firm believer in competition between the two modes, for all the reasons you state.

After the DfT decision to award the WCML to First, Virgin rushed out a proposal to fly from MAN to LHR; do you really think the competition authorities will allow them to control both the plane and rail links?

I'm afraid that's yet another ill-informed conclusion drawn from two separate developments. Virgin coming into the LHR-MAN market was a response to the end of BMI, and these negotiations take months. The announcement might have been brought forward, but that is it.

I personally think people are more likely to choose between air and rail based on factors such as convenience of the terminal location, frequency of service, ease of going through security (or not having to) and price, long before they worry about who is operating the route.

It’s not just Gimpo (GMP) and Incheon (ICN) in Seoul: Hongqiao (SHA) and Pudong (PVG) in Shanghai, Songshan (TSA) and Taoyuan (TPE) in Taipei, and Narita (NRT) and Haneda (HND) in Tokyo are other examples.

We were talking about linked pairs of airports which enabled easy transfer without going through city centre of changing, hence I higlighted Seoul. Afaik, to go between the others you need at least one change.

Correction - PVG to SHA is 27 stops on Line 2, but you will go via the city centre. I would guess a good 90 mins for the journey.

[Windsorian]

Whatever some of you may think about the various comments, I think we are pretty much on the ball for what the Davies Commission will be considering for their Interim (end of 2013) and Final Reports (after the 2015 General Election).

I see the facts and numbers I've been writing are about the same as Tim Clark from Emirates -

Emirates chief demands more Heathrow 'efficiency' - www.travelweekly.co.uk

and I would point out his comment "Some short-haul services could be switched to other London and regional airports to free up capacity for more long-haul services" could be achieved by the NHT solution I have been postulating. Futhermore with a bit of "can do" it could be up and running within 12 months!

Virgin coming into the LHR-MAN market was a response to the end of BMI

Time will tell; but if they are successful on the WCML, will they still want to fly to MAN?

This is all decending into lunacy now. LHR should aim the hub airport of choice.

and you accuse me of lunacy !

[Skipness One Echo]

and I would point out his comment "Some short-haul services could be switched to other London and regional airports to free up capacity for more long-haul services" could be achieved by the NHT solution I have been postulating. Futhermore with a bit of "can do" it could be up and running within 12 months!

Hi Windsorian, I have asked you a few questions related to this. Can you please try and answer them?
As some background, which is always helpful. THis chap operates a long haul airline into LHR, of course he is going to say that. However a fair number of routes on some carriers won't work without feed, so that outs his competitors at a competitive disadvatage.

i.e. BA

Not being rude, but I urge you to become familiar with flyertalk and what needs to happen to make a route commercially viable.

Finally, once you've answered the questions we've asked, consider this one.

What is using Northolt adding?
Capacity is available at real and existing commercial airports today, at STN, LGW and LCY alongwith SEN.
Using NHT will not assist in hub connectivity at LHR.

You keep coming back to one single point about moving "small planes" from LHR and building a tent city at NHT to bus people to....LHR. What business question are you trying to answer and how does one take it to market?

"Tired of the comforts of lounge access? Have you considered everything a coach tour through London has to offer? London-Heathrow : Gateway to the UK"
Or some such. I am genuinely curious as to what this solution brings to the table.

Time will tell; but if they are successful on the WCML, will they still want to fly to MAN?

Again, may I respectfully point you in the direction of numerous threads discussing the pressing need for Virgin to have feed and connectivity to make sure their long haul business remains viable. They are vulnerable as they are outside the alliance structures at the moment, which is driving the need to build up short haul connections. There's a lot of interesting reading if you want to learn. With respect, the two businesses share little more than the name in the title and a figurehead.

And finally, I assume you are steadfastly against BA being allowed to launch LHR-LBA (Leeds) next month? Better that market, jobs, and growth is served over AMS / CDG / FRA with the Germans, French and Dutch.
Or would you like the inaugural from a tent near Ruislip?

[Gonzo]

Windsorian, of course Emirates would make the case for fewer short haul flights at LHR, that would free up capacity at LHR and also push people on to Emirates' own services from other UK and European airports.

It can easily be argued that it is in Emirates, and other airlines similarly placed, interests for LHR to forego it's hub status.........they would prefer........wait for it.........for Dubai (Abu Dhabi etc) to be the hub people in the UK use when flying eastbound.

[Libertine Winno]

I will come back to it again and explain why tents at Northolt and buses are lunacy;

The UK needs a 4 runway hub airport to ensure that business is not leaked to France, Germany or even the Netherlands, which all have 4 runway (or more) hub airports, and traffic is not routed via Dubai or Abu Dhabi.

The best solution I have seen, personally, is the policy exchange one proposing 4 runways to the immediate west of the current site. However, whether you are partial to two new runways north and south of the current two, or even one in the estuary, it is generally accepted that a 4 runway hub is required.

To that end, a fudge by making further runways at LGW or STN and linking them to LHR does not work, and similarly tents and buses from Northolt just doesn't cut the mustard. Why? Because transfer times will be lengthy, and the product will be far inferior to those on offer at CDG, AMS or FRA. Therefore, that is where the traffic will go and we do have not solved our problem. Those proposals look alarmingly like standard British political fudges, which will not solve the problem and probably be late and overbudget to boot!

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Meanwhile NHT tents, taxis & buses remain a possible short term solution to the SE capacity problem.

If BAA had a collection of electic taxis & MPVs along with hydrogen powered single and double decker buses, they would have a pretty flexible choice of transport for anyone transferring between NHT & LHR. If only a handful of pax were transferring a taxi may be suitable, a few more and the MPV may be required; if the demand arose the single or double decker hydrogen bus could be used. Of course BAA would not need as many drivers as vehicles, if they were trained to drive all types."

Er, what does any of this have to do with the BAA?

Quote: “There is no shortage of capacity at NHT which as far back as 1952 operated 50,000atms; if there is really an immediate need for additional runway capacity why don't you go for it ? As I have explained, with a bit of "can do" attitude you could have it up and running within 12 months; instead the official LHR saboteurs are intent on creating unnecessary problems to prevent it happening.”

You’re missing the point, NHT could only work as a regional/commuter airport independent of, and completely separate from, LHR, and then only if a proper terminal is built (no tents!), and it has an adjacent station on the Central Line tube and Chiltern Railways.

Think of a SEN- or LCY- type operation with point to point thin domestic and near abroad routes (if border control have a presence), together with charter and holiday companys. Also bear in mind that the military presence would remain.

There is no way that NHT can be an overflow operation for LHR shorthaul, despite what Tim Clark of Emirates Airlines has to say on the matter. The only operations that could be diverted are the shorthaul charters, but that traffic is so insignificant, it’s hardly worth the bother!

Quote: “The expensively rekindled debate on a R3 & R4 at LHR smacks of desparation by BAA / IAG to get in quick before the new owners of LGW & STN get their houses in order. Hopefully the Competition Commission will insist they are allowed a fair chance to develop hub status without interference from the LHR bully boys.”

Windsorian, you must know that this is nonsense! Its not for the Competition Commission to determine which airports become hubs. That role is decided by the carrier(s) that set up a hub at any particular airport.

[Libertine Winno]

So the solution is simple; the commission should allow runways to be built at LHR, LGW and STN and then sit back and see who secures funding for their new runway based on a cost/revenue basis. None of this has any effect on the taxpayer anyway, so let the markets decide!

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “I'm afraid that's yet another ill-informed conclusion drawn from two separate developments. Virgin coming into the LHR-MAN market was a response to the end of BMI, and these negotiations take months. The announcement might have been brought forward, but that is it.”

Clearly, VS domestic was planned before there was an inkling of Virgin losing the WCML franchise. The two companies are completely separate and nothing to do with each other.

Quote: “I personally think people are more likely to choose between air and rail based on factors such as convenience of the terminal location, frequency of service, ease of going through security (or not having to) and price, long before they worry about who is operating the route.”

Exactly, and geography, as well as accessibility.

Quote: “We were talking about linked pairs of airports which enabled easy transfer without going through city centre of changing, hence I higlighted Seoul. Afaik, to go between the others you need at least one change.

Correction - PVG to SHA is 27 stops on Line 2, but you will go via the city centre. I would guess a good 90 mins for the journey.”

Agreed, but this model works so that, unlike the “Heathwick” proposal, there is usually no need to travel between the airports, as domestic flights from the regions (and the near abroad) run into both.

So, in the Shanghai example, if needing to transit through the hub (e.g. if on MU), PVG might be the airport of choice.

On a point to point flight one might use SHA or PVG, depending on such factors as the Shanghai origin/destination area, prices, schedules, airline preferences, etc..

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “This is all descending into lunacy now.

LHR should aim to remain THE hub airport of choice in Europe well into the middle of this century and beyond.

To propose that the best way of doing that is to put tents up at a military airfield 6 miles away and bus people between sites, or link to another airport 30 miles away suggests, in my opinion, at best a distinct lack of knowledge on what LHR needs to achieve or at worst, sheer delusion.”

Agreed, or indeed, an airport in the middle of nowhere and not linked to LHR (the Boris vanity project).

Quote: “Hi Windsorian, I have asked you a few questions related to this. Can you please try and answer them?”

Not a chance!
　
Quote: “And finally, I assume you are steadfastly against BA being allowed to launch LHR-LBA (Leeds) next month? Better that market, jobs, and growth is served over AMS / CDG / FRA with the Germans, French and Dutch.
Or would you like the inaugural from a tent near Ruislip?”

Good point!
　
Quote: “The UK needs a 4 runway hub airport to ensure that business is not leaked to France, Germany or even the Netherlands, which all have 4 runway (or more) hub airports, and traffic is not routed via Dubai or Abu Dhabi.

The best solution I have seen, personally, is the policy exchange one proposing 4 runways to the immediate west of the current site. However, whether you are partial to two new runways north and south of the current two, or even one in the estuary, it is generally accepted that a 4 runway hub is required.”

It’s the least bad option, at least some realistic thought has been put in. Take issue with abandoning 2 perfectly good 2.5 mi. long rwys and the demolition of reservoirs, but the principle of going west of the M25 is sound, just keep the existing (long) rwys and do 2 extra rwys and do them further north.

Quote: “To that end, a fudge by making further runways at LGW or STN and linking them to LHR does not work, and similarly tents and buses from Northolt just doesn't cut the mustard. Why? Because transfer times will be lengthy, and the product will be far inferior to those on offer at CDG, AMS or FRA. Therefore, that is where the traffic will go and we do have not solved our problem. Those proposals look alarmingly like standard British political fudges, which will not solve the problem and probably be late and overbudget to boot!”

Agreed, complete waste of time, and the best way to make our country an international laughing stock.


Quote: “So the solution is simple; the commission should allow runways to be built at LHR, LGW and STN and then sit back and see who secures funding for their new runway based on a cost/revenue basis. None of this has any effect on the taxpayer anyway, so let the markets decide!”

Interesting idea, suspect LHR would win this one by a mile, it’s far and away the best business case!

[jabird]

Time will tell; but if they are successful on the WCML, will they still want to fly to MAN?

You are confusing two entirely separate transport networks. The WCML is great for point to point services between the respective city centres, and is also fed through local connecting rail services and stations with vast car parks along the route. From multistorey to platform in a couple of minutes.

Air really doesn't win on the kind of journey described above. That's why around 80% of people travelling between London and Manchester already go by train (hs2 will therefore make little different to modal splits).

HOWEVER - some people find the air route offers them convenience for suburb to suburb journeys. Even after security and long walks to the gate, the flight itself still takes HALF the time.

More importantly, Virgin's existing network from Manchester is tiny. So by replacing a route previously operated by BMI, they can feed their OWN network without having to worry about dealing with their much loved friends at BA.

What has all this got to do with the WCML? Diddly squat! Remember - Virgin management only have c. 50% shareholding in either outfit.

[Torquelink]

I guess one of the major considerations of the review and the main focus of protest over additional runway(s) is noise. I'm sure suitable technically minded ppruners can answer the question: has there been a formal study as to the aggregate impact on overall noise caused by a) the predicted increase in atms and b) the replacement over time of e.g. A320/737NG by neo/MAX and the replacement of 777/A330 by 787/A350 etc. It could be that overall noise impact caused by use of an additional runway is offset by the reduction in noise emissions generally through the replacement of current generation aircraft by newer quieter models? If that was the case it would remove at least one plank of the objectors' arguments.

[DaveReidUK]

I guess one of the major considerations of the review and the main focus of protest over additional runway(s) is noise. I'm sure suitable technically minded ppruners can answer the question: has there been a formal study as to the aggregate impact on overall noise caused by a) the predicted increase in atms and b) the replacement over time of e.g. A320/737NG by neo/MAX and the replacement of 777/A330 by 787/A350 etc. It could be that overall noise impact caused by use of an additional runway is offset by the reduction in noise emissions generally through the replacement of current generation aircraft by newer quieter models? If that was the case it would remove at least one plank of the objectors' arguments.

AFAIK, the noise modelling, which is done by the CAA's ERCD on behalf of the DfT, uses a mix of aircraft types that corresponds to those using Heathrow.

I don't believe for a moment that they haven't plugged the timescale for those new types into the forecasting model.

[BALHR]

If you look on the area surrounding LHR, there is enough space for up to 6 parallel runways (without knocking down too many homes), so there is space for LHR to expand further

As for what the commission should say about LHR, they should state that R3 and R4 need to built, LHR problems are in a state that R3 is not enough

[Torquelink]

Dave,

Be interesting to see the outcome, particularly set against noise levels at current fleet mix which would then provide an indication of noise trends going forward.