HEATHROW
we wouldn't have to pay to expand LHR for a start Dave...............
You can't just take the total traffic on a given route, divide by an A380's capacity, and then operate at whatever frequency that equates to.
Why is that a fallacy?
If you look at the putative billions in lost trade that arise to the UK because there isn't a direct flight to somewhere or other, the inconvenience caused by consolidating flights should be trivial in comparison. If it's so many billions, the state could pay the market rate for slots that airlines are deprived of.
Airlines could be given a few years to acquire 77Ws/748s/380s for the role.
If you look at the putative billions in lost trade that arise to the UK because there isn't a direct flight to somewhere or other, the inconvenience caused by consolidating flights should be trivial in comparison. If it's so many billions, the state could pay the market rate for slots that airlines are deprived of.
Airlines could be given a few years to acquire 77Ws/748s/380s for the role.
the inconvenience caused by consolidating flights should be trivial in comparison
Airlines could be given a few years to acquire 77Ws/748s/380s for the role
I asked for an explanation - I do have very little idea of airline operations.
I'm sure my suggestion would not apply to a route such as EDI or FRA, but some destinations seem overserved by too-small aircraft. 198 flights a week to New York using relatively small a/c isn't a good use of scarce slots.
I'm sure my suggestion would not apply to a route such as EDI or FRA, but some destinations seem overserved by too-small aircraft. 198 flights a week to New York using relatively small a/c isn't a good use of scarce slots.
I'm sure my suggestion would not apply to a route such as EDI or FRA, but some destinations seem overserved by too-small aircraft. 198 flights a week to New York using relatively small a/c isn't a good use of scarce slots.
The only narrow-body aircraft used on that route are 757s, as you rightly say, but hardly "3 every hour". In fact there are only 2 757 flights a day (3 on Sundays and Mondays), and those are to Newark (all JFK flights are wide-bodies).
So consolidating those, even if feasible, would hardly "free a fair number of slots".
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, but this is a market economy not a planned economy and airlines fly routes that make money. LHR-JFK/EWR is profitable due to high loads down the pointy end which cross susidises good deals down the back. To make sure you fill the pointy end you need frequency not capacity.
There's a reason why BA don't fly A380s to New York but all the other BA/AA/UA/VS/DL/KU flights are on wide body aircraft as Dave has said.
There's a reason why BA don't fly A380s to New York but all the other BA/AA/UA/VS/DL/KU flights are on wide body aircraft as Dave has said.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we wouldn't have to pay to expand LHR for a start Dave...............
Sorry, but you clearly have no idea how the airline industry operates, in particular the competitive advantage that results from providing frequency (one of the reasons, in fact, that Little Red has failed to compete effectively with BA on UK domestic routes).
If airlines were compelled only to use wide-body aircraft at LHR the runway capacity problem would disappear overnight, because many of the routes flown by the narrow-body types that account for two-thirds of all Heathrow movements would no longer be viable.
But even the New York example doesn't stand up to examination.
The only narrow-body aircraft used on that route are 757s, as you rightly say, but hardly "3 every hour". In fact there are only 2 757 flights a day (3 on Sundays and Mondays), and those are to Newark (all JFK flights are wide-bodies).
So consolidating those, even if feasible, would hardly "free a fair number of slots".
The only narrow-body aircraft used on that route are 757s, as you rightly say, but hardly "3 every hour". In fact there are only 2 757 flights a day (3 on Sundays and Mondays), and those are to Newark (all JFK flights are wide-bodies).
So consolidating those, even if feasible, would hardly "free a fair number of slots".
No, but this is a market economy not a planned economy and airlines fly routes that make money. LHR-JFK/EWR is profitable due to high loads down the pointy end which cross susidises good deals down the back. To make sure you fill the pointy end you need frequency not capacity.
There's a reason why BA don't fly A380s to New York but all the other BA/AA/UA/VS/DL/KU flights are on wide body aircraft as Dave has said.
There's a reason why BA don't fly A380s to New York but all the other BA/AA/UA/VS/DL/KU flights are on wide body aircraft as Dave has said.
one of the main reasons was(is) because the 747s are being reserved for shorter long haul to east coast (due to fuel efficiency) and can provide capacity and frequency
Have made all these points, many times, as have others. Why does no one offer a cohesive counter argument?
Some appear not to understand. It really isn’t that difficult a concept to grasp.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure I saw come out of Runway UK event at MAN this week that Boris Island would have cost the public £50bn, expanding Heathrow would need £5/6bn of public funding, whilst growing Gatwick would require just £1bn. I'll try and back that up by finding the quote.
I'll try and back that up by finding the quote.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that Dave. I think SHD knows what he's talking about with these numbers. No wonder Boris Island is a no go !! £5bn for LHR isn't loose change either - but do'able. LGW looks, from a public cost point of view, a good option at under a billion. These costs, and NIMBYS, will have huge effect over the politicians decisions...they always need votes more than hubs unfortunately, however shortsighted that maybe.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow expansion 'right choice' for whole of UK
Heathrow expansion 'right choice' for whole of UK - Telegraph
Four of these airports have links to/from LHR:
ABZ, GLA, LBA, LPL and NCL
Liverpool John Lennon Airport backs Heathrow third runway as it looks to re-establish a London link - Liverpool Echo
LPL would appear to want like such links.
Significantly, a few of the larger airports are missing:
EDI (favours LGW? same ownership),
MAN (favours STN? same ownership),
BHX (wants to be the third rwy?)
BE wants to operate from NHT.....very long term LHR ambitions?
The letter in full:
Dear Sir Howard,
The so-called London Airports debate is not about London at all. It is about the aviation industry as a whole – an industry that employs 960,000 people – boosting growth across the UK and contributing £52bn to the UK economy. Airports are an integral part of local economies; our growth generates growth in our regions.
We are continually looking to grow our route networks – by starting new routes to airports in cities and countries that are destinations in their own right, and by connecting to hub airports to allow our passengers to transfer on to a wider variety of long-haul destinations. But the UK’s hub airport, Heathrow, is full. This is limiting the slots available for domestic routes and onward connections, and limiting choice for our passengers.
The health of the UK aviation industry is not about the success of one airport, but the success of all our airports, each performing a vital role. Heathrow’s role is as the UK’s hub, one of only six worldwide with more than 50 long haul routes and expansion there would create over 200,000 more slots. For expansion to benefit the whole country there must be a mechanism in place to strengthen and secure domestic connections to the UK’s hub. We will be backing Heathrow expansion in the Airports Commission consultation as the right choice for the whole of the UK.
Yours sincerely,
Carol Benzie, Managing Director, Aberdeen International Airport
Amanda McMillan, Managing Director, Glasgow Airport
John Parkin, CEO, Leeds Bradford International Airport
Andrew Cornish, CEO, Liverpool John Lennon Airport
David Laws, Chief Executive, Newcastle International Airport
Four of these airports have links to/from LHR:
ABZ, GLA, LBA, LPL and NCL
Liverpool John Lennon Airport backs Heathrow third runway as it looks to re-establish a London link - Liverpool Echo
LPL would appear to want like such links.
Significantly, a few of the larger airports are missing:
EDI (favours LGW? same ownership),
MAN (favours STN? same ownership),
BHX (wants to be the third rwy?)
BE wants to operate from NHT.....very long term LHR ambitions?
The letter in full:
Dear Sir Howard,
The so-called London Airports debate is not about London at all. It is about the aviation industry as a whole – an industry that employs 960,000 people – boosting growth across the UK and contributing £52bn to the UK economy. Airports are an integral part of local economies; our growth generates growth in our regions.
We are continually looking to grow our route networks – by starting new routes to airports in cities and countries that are destinations in their own right, and by connecting to hub airports to allow our passengers to transfer on to a wider variety of long-haul destinations. But the UK’s hub airport, Heathrow, is full. This is limiting the slots available for domestic routes and onward connections, and limiting choice for our passengers.
The health of the UK aviation industry is not about the success of one airport, but the success of all our airports, each performing a vital role. Heathrow’s role is as the UK’s hub, one of only six worldwide with more than 50 long haul routes and expansion there would create over 200,000 more slots. For expansion to benefit the whole country there must be a mechanism in place to strengthen and secure domestic connections to the UK’s hub. We will be backing Heathrow expansion in the Airports Commission consultation as the right choice for the whole of the UK.
Yours sincerely,
Carol Benzie, Managing Director, Aberdeen International Airport
Amanda McMillan, Managing Director, Glasgow Airport
John Parkin, CEO, Leeds Bradford International Airport
Andrew Cornish, CEO, Liverpool John Lennon Airport
David Laws, Chief Executive, Newcastle International Airport
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 4th Dec 2014 at 22:47.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the contrary, I think you'll find that every man and his dog believes he knows how to run an airport/airline/country.
LGW looks, from a public cost point of view, a good option at under a billion.
Premium pax, who make money for the airlines, prefer LHR, therefore, so do the airlines.
Southern UK Airspace is virtually empty - last few stragglers being let in to LHR. Dutch airspace is pretty busy as flights start to turn around. Interestingly a lot circled for a short while over the Channel but are now continuing on to LHR