Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

HEATHROW

Old 9th Dec 2015, 21:08
  #3921 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 249
Good grief SOAP, you do like to take quotes out of context don't you.
Trash 'n' Navs is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2015, 21:38
  #3922 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Good grief T&N, you do like to trivialise important issues don't you.
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2015, 22:15
  #3923 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Under my cap
Posts: 147
By the way, increased capacity for leisure travel is needed across the SE airports system generally. But LGW appears to offer the most logical solution for addressing this need.
Stansted alone has at least 10m, possibly 15m, of unsold capacity available for the growth of point to point leisure/vfr travel - something it already serves very well.
Itchin McCrevis is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2015, 22:36
  #3924 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Rw 3

Terminal 4

EasyJet

....careful Holmes
Bagso is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2015, 23:00
  #3925 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 39
Posts: 479
Listen, the fact of the matter is that airlines only fly from LGW because they can't fly from LHR. Look at the long list of airlines that start of at LGW and then move to LHR at the first chance. VN and GA being the most recent cases. The rest of LGW's operation is just overflow. If you told BA tomorrow that they had to stop operating from LGW they wouldn't even give it a second thought.

LTN and STN are also just overflow. EZY wanting to open a base at LHR says it all. Even the cheap seats want to get a piece of LHR.

Why does no one listen to the experts, i.e. The airlines, the people who's business it is to make money from transporting people by air. Millions of pounds being paid for slots and airlines queuing up for their chance to operate only happens at one airport in the world. It is genuinely laughable that second runways at STN or LGW are considered as options. A third runway at LHR is the right decision and is wanted by the people that matter. The sad thing is that this country has long been at the mercy of the minorities so chances are the rest of us will just give in for an easy life. Stick your head in the sand and wait for the moaning to stop whilst a once great country crumbles to insignificance.
Rivet Joint is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2015, 23:01
  #3926 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Stansted alone has at least 10m, possibly 15m, of unsold capacity available for the growth of point to point leisure/vfr travel - something it already serves very well.
Completely agree with this point, IM. This spare capacity is available immediately. However, it is reasonable to consider the probability that air travel demand will continue to grow between now and the earliest reasonable in-service date for a new runway in the SE. Both LHR and LGW can only grow from todays levels at the margins in terms of runway capacity and by encouraging use of larger aircraft types. So STN and to a lesser extent Luton are the only reasonable release valves for SE growth between now and a new runway opening. Barring a massive economic recession, that 15m at STN will be swallowed up well before then. And new demand will extend beyond the leisure sector alone. That isn't much headroom for accommodating 10-15 years of interim SE market growth.
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2015, 23:27
  #3927 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
the fact of the matter is that airlines only fly from LGW because they can't fly from LHR
This gross generalisation does not stand up to scrutiny. There is a section of the market that craves access to LHR - notably business-orientated long-haul - but the suggestion that all airlines at LGW, STN and LTN would rather operate everything from LHR is complete nonsense. All three of those airports have distinct, prosperous, heavily-populated catchments of their own. And many of the airlines which call them home wouldn't dream of switching their operations to LHR en masse. Companies such as Thomas Cook, Thomson, Ryanair, Monarch and many others could be relied upon to operate the bulk of their programmes from the gateways they already choose today. Some traffic at these airports may be LHR overflow, but the vast majority is not. Note that EasyJet proposes a supplementary base at LHR. The company has never contemplated abandoning LGW, they would be crazy to do so. And they serve distinct markets at LTN, STN and SEN too.

Why does no one listen to the experts, i.e. The airlines, the people who's business it is to make money from transporting people by air.
Excellent suggestion. Let's follow the advice of Willie Walsh on all this.

It is genuinely laughable that second runways at STN or LGW are considered as options.
Not to anybody who does the maths without getting hung up on glamorous niche long-haul routes in isolation.

A third runway at LHR is the right decision and is wanted by the people that matter.
And not wanted in equal measure by many influential people who also matter. [Who doesn't matter, anyway?]. And LHR R3 is not the right decision for as long as the proposed costings associated with delivering it make no financial sense.

wait for the moaning to stop whilst a once great country crumbles to insignificance.
Is that really how you see the UK today? You need to travel abroad more!
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2015, 23:27
  #3928 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ballymena
Posts: 1,169
A point that seems to be very conveniently overlooked on here, why do airlines want to transfer from Lgw to Lhr. It is due to the fact that yields are higher at Lhr. Why is that? Because Lhr has a virtual monopoly on long haul and business travel from the UK, never mind London. Slots etc scarce, and that scarcity is used to drive up prices/yields. A few months back, this point was made by another poster either on this thread or the thread that ran about the commission report. And let us not forget that Lhr, the airlines and all the other companies involved with the Lhr project have a major vested interest to ensure Lgw never gets a look in so that the high fares situation can continue. Why should we help them all succeed in that aim? And why are so many on here prepared to accept all these projections about economic benefits when the truth is, they have no idea. Who knows what 5 years will bring in terms of growth etc never mind projecting 30 years out in the multiple billions. It is complete pie in the sky stuff that a lot of people with very vested interests are determined to see through. We, the tax payer will be asked to pay, and years down the road, we will learn that we were sold a complete pup. I hope government sees sense, denies Lhr their ambition to seal their dominant position and give the decision to Lgw. Then we will see some real competition. And not for one minute do I accept that an airline, faced with going to Lgw or not starting/expanding in London, will walk away because they can't get Lhr. Lhr is the big attraction due to the fact their almost monopoly position enables airlines and Lhr to charge us all more, no other reason. Wake up to the darker side of capitalism! And I am a capitalist believer, but sometimes it is not good for the consumer.
True Blue is online now  
Old 9th Dec 2015, 23:58
  #3929 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London
Age: 38
Posts: 460
True Blue you're failing to see how the dynamics of this market work.
Compare the number of non stop far east and Chinese routes out of CDG/FRA/AMS and then LHR. London lags behind hugely, now by your impeccable logic, if they can't get LHR, they'll be at LGW. How come so many of them aren't in London at all?

LHR works well due to a critical mass of connections due to legacy BOAC/BEA and empire routes history as well as being round a whole lot longer than LGW. Hence your concept of a level playing field in certain markets os flawed as the existing market is so skewed to LHR.

Also, your assertion that LHR has a monopoly on business travel is quite far from true.

So you can regulate and disadvantage some at your discretion, or allow the market to function freely and support it. Either way, China fly A380s from Amsterdam, not Gatwick. Gatwick is in London and has slots. Worth considering why the capacity is in the Netherlands.
Skipness One Foxtrot is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2015, 04:29
  #3930 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 370
Compare the number of non stop far east and Chinese routes out of CDG/FRA/AMS and then LHR. London lags behind hugely, now by your impeccable logic, if they can't get LHR, they'll be at LGW. How come so many of them aren't in London at all?
Not necessarily because of slot shortage. For a start LHR has around eleven MEB3 A380s heading east every day, plus other aircraft types, not to mention more A380s from LGW, all offering better schedules and service than the Chinese carriers and BA. Netherlands and Germany on the other hand have capped the capacity of the MEB3 in order to protect the likes of KLM and LH.

Secondly CZ is with Skyteam, and AMS is a major Skyteam hub, so perhaps easier for them to fill the A380 there. Or it could simply be that it's still harder for Chinese to get visas for the UK than for the rest of Europe. Regardless, CZ has a daily 787 to LHR and I'm sure if the demand was there they would substitute an A380 on the route.
Logohu is online now  
Old 10th Dec 2015, 11:06
  #3931 (permalink)  
c52
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,400
Are there businesses that say, we would do billions of pounds' worth of business in Xville, if only we could fly there direct from LHR?

I believe HAL when they say there's a correlation between business done between two cities and direct flights, but which is cause and which is effect? LHR supporters seem to think that business will happen if the flights are in place. I imagine the flights will be scheduled if the demand is there.
c52 is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2015, 11:35
  #3932 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 72
Posts: 231
In a truly capitalistic society prices are driven down by more choice, if more space was available at LGW then the likes of Norwegian I believe would offer more US flights at low prices and you would have EasyJet acting as their feed.
This in turn would lead to BA competing with lower fares to stop a drift of PAX to LGW. New York has 4 airports spaced around the city all fiercely competing,
This would be a much better model than putting all your eggs in one basket.
Walnut is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2015, 14:33
  #3933 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Sir Bufton Tufton from the Air Ministry is briefing ministers this afternoon.

Decision to be announced 1830

Transport Minster is then briefing press at 1900, except of course certain members of the BBC nudge, nudge who know the answer already !

Last edited by Bagso; 10th Dec 2015 at 17:45.
Bagso is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2015, 15:46
  #3934 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: england
Posts: 269
Ministers prepare for Heathrow decision - BBC News
yotty is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2015, 19:10
  #3935 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 506
Deferred until AT LEAST next summer.


Quelle surprise.
Dannyboy39 is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2015, 19:25
  #3936 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 316
A.ka. It's never going to happen
T250 is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2015, 19:40
  #3937 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Prophead

"Once my friends in The North realised they could fly practically anywhere from MANCHESTER they became totally disinterested in Heathrow " see above

PS where does this contribution of "billions of pounds to the economy come from"?

A) No corporation tax was paid last year !

B) Heathrow has foriegn owners, It is not a UK company!

Last edited by Bagso; 11th Dec 2015 at 07:06.
Bagso is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2015, 20:26
  #3938 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Under my cap
Posts: 147
the fact of the matter is that airlines only fly from LGW because they can't fly from LHR
That is an exageration, only about 45% of Gatwick traffic would gravitate to Heathrow and only if the appropriate service types and fare levels were made available there. easyJet clearly recognise this and I've always reckoned Norwegian would grab some of the Heathrow action as well to properly take on SAS if they ever got the chance.

This still leaves a substantial market for Gatwick drawing from South London to the South Coast - something similar in size to that of Stansted.
Itchin McCrevis is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2015, 20:32
  #3939 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,006
Hell's bells, can't these old Etonians ever make a decision on this.......? What's the point of having an elite establishment if they can't tell us what to do?
Barling Magna is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2015, 20:57
  #3940 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Under my cap
Posts: 147
It's quite evident the political will to make this decision does not exist.
Itchin McCrevis is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.