HEATHROW

[Trinity 09L]

Is Heathrow really a Hub

Below are the passenger figures published by HAL for 2014

Number of passengers arriving and departing per day: average 201,000 (split 50/50 between arriving and departing)
Number of passengers arriving and departing in 2014: 73.4 million
Busiest day ever recorded (passenger numbers): 17 August 2014 with 241,412
Busiest year ever recorded (passenger numbers): 2014 with 73.4 million
Percentage of international passengers in 2014: 93% (68.1 million)
Percentage of domestic passengers in 2014: 7% (5.3 million)
Percentage of business travellers in 2014: 30% (22.2 million)
Percentage of other leisure travellers in 2014: 70% (51.2 million)
Percentage of transfer passengers in 2014: 36% (26.3 million)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only 30% are business travellers, but there are more = 36% as transfer pax, and 70% pax are leisure travellers.
No individual breakdown of domestic or business travellers as transfer passengers.
Is it really a "hub".

[T250]

Below are the passenger figures published by HAL for 2014

Number of passengers arriving and departing per day: average 201,000 (split 50/50 between arriving and departing)
Number of passengers arriving and departing in 2014: 73.4 million
Busiest day ever recorded (passenger numbers): 17 August 2014 with 241,412
Busiest year ever recorded (passenger numbers): 2014 with 73.4 million
Percentage of international passengers in 2014: 93% (68.1 million)
Percentage of domestic passengers in 2014: 7% (5.3 million)
Percentage of business travellers in 2014: 30% (22.2 million)
Percentage of other leisure travellers in 2014: 70% (51.2 million)
Percentage of transfer passengers in 2014: 36% (26.3 million)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only 30% are business travellers, but there are more = 36% as transfer pax, and 70% pax are leisure travellers.
No individual breakdown of domestic or business travellers as transfer passengers.
Is it really a "hub".

That says it all really doesn't it!

If we want to expand LHR let's do it for the right and correct reasons, not some unsubstantiated 'hub' bull****...

At least LGW's campaign for expansion has been slightly more accurate focusing more on accurate facts and figures and costs which GAL themselves are apparently prepared to pay (albeit at the expense of pax and airlines).

[Bagso]

Presumably at 30% Davies and friends still believe it's significant to call it a hub, unless of course this evidence was missed by the "experts".

They certainly dismissed the "cost" element as insignificant as to did the other burks running the transport select comittee!

Some proper forensic scrutiny would be welcome.

[Ametyst1]

Well, the whole idea of the third runway is for Heathrow to further it's hub traffic. The airport needs to be effective in competing with the Middle East hubs, Istanbul, Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris CdG.

If BA were able to have a single London hub operation (moving Gatwick ops to Heathrow) and develop new routes to new destinations in USA, South America, India and China then Heathrow would become a more attractive proposition to hub through. Add to this more UK domestic destinations and frequencies.

Setting cost and regional ambitions aside I am afraid it is the Heathrow way or no way!

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Trinity 09L

Is it really a "hub"

With well over 1 in every 3 passengers arriving at Heathrow subsequently departing on a connecting flight, that sounds like a pretty good definition of a hub to me.

For comparison, LHR's 37% of connecting pax is midway between CDG's 33% and AMS's 41%.

Are you suggesting that FRA is Europe's only hub airport?

[rutankrd]

For the umpteenth time in the last five years lets define the meaning of a transport hub viz a Hub and Spoke Airline business model - they are NOT the same thing !

Heathrow is most certainly a Global/National and Regional transport Hub transfer point however there is just One Hub and Spoke airline base - That of IAG Group carrier BA and JV partners AA and JAL supported by a few other One Airlines friends and relatives.

Heathrow is declining as a transfer/connection point on the global stage - this is undoubted however fact is the airlines would rather see this decline continue to accelerate after all this strengthens the yield potential and bottom line doesn't it ?

London - Point to point fare yields will always out perform those from say Bologna via LHR to Austin for instance.

This whole debate is based on the wrong question imo and specifically the framework was about RUNWAY capacity not the bl**dy preference of Hub and Spoke.

It misses the point on where much/most of the aviation growth projected by esteemed analysts is expected to be in the next decades and is NOT over the EU golden triangle !

Most will be Chinese domestic and regionally. India has equal domestic potential if corruption and local politic interference is broken !

South America again needs an end to political favouritism to expand with most growth again rather local.

Almost all growth within Europe will continue to be with the disruptive forces of the flexible fare operators - Point to point based business models.

And a select number of regional airports WILL see an up take of longer haul particularly leisure based.

The ME3 have been an added disruptive force in the UK market however i believe already rather close to a point of consolidation from now on.

From a personal perspective i am rather sceptical of the numbers used to estimate aviation growth over the next quarter of a millennium - they just seem way too high in a straight line !

The projections have been wrong before .

Seriously is there really a Birmingham sized demand just waiting for a new strip of concrete and expenditure of a medium sized nation in the boroughs of Slough and Windsor, Spelthorne and Hounslow ?

As for the regions need Heathrow and trickle down - Call boloney - the regions need to access to the global stage can be via anywhere Amsterdam/Newark /Dubai already provide a far better experience for many and those that choose BA - well Newcastle Leeds and Manchester do have multiple daily flights to Heathrow already.

Based on whats been said it should be of little surprise that the airline that would like to see R3/T6 the most would be you guessed it a Flexible fares carrier somewhat orange operating point to point short haul at the expense of an other base !

Not those oft talked of X'ian or Trivandrum services !

[PAXboy]

One of the main reasons that it is not the hub is could have been - is because of the lack of R3+4. That and, since the changes of Thatcher and the abandoning of responsibility, that BA have been allowed to monopolise the place. It has been stated loudly that BA do not want R3 as it's all nice and cosy for them. Exactly the sort of thing the Conservaties say they are against.

[rutankrd]

Code:

One of the main reasons that it is not the hub is could have been - is because of the lack of R3+4.

Couldn't disagree more !

There is no case to answer for multiple runway regional jet type airport operations in Europe .

They simply can't compete with rail and road for domestic travel and do you really think many would think LPL-LHR-NCL as anything but an expensive hassle because thats exactly the type of journey many stateside do make on those bazilian RJs every day !

Simply put those domestics went away on pure economical grounds.

bmi couldn't make even Glasgow pay because too many were interlines at nought in the pound - Without sufficient peoples paying £350 -£400 they simply don't work.

As for the likes of amethyst its largely sour grapes from this Liverpublican.

Fact is even when offered one-stop global links as recently as by KLM the Scousers wouldn't pay enough . Would they via Heathrow again probably not.

Speke does what it does best via the flexible fares operators - Far better range than anything BA/BE/BZ or CS and BD ever offered locally!

[Prophead]

So the argument for not turning LHR into a major hub airport is that it isn't one already? Well there is common sense thinking for you.

Yes people can transfer via AMS. Heathrow wants to bring that traffic and income via the UK which will bring money into the economy.

This £18bn figure is the very top estimate and it is more likely to be much much less than that.

As for an expanded LHR being of benefit to the whole of the uk? Of course it is. In case you haven't noticed the people of the south east already have access to Heathrow. This is about giving access to the rest of the UK and Europe. Moving short haul to another runway will free up the longer runways for more long haul routes too.

I was waiting for shed to chime in with his north/south chip on his shoulder but the reality is an expanded LHR benefits all the UK as much as it already does the south.

[Prophead]

Couldn't disagree more !

There is no case to answer for multiple runway regional jet type airport operations in Europe .

Tell that to all the people that fly from Leeds, Humberside, Durham, Norwich etc. to Amsterdam and onto long haul flights as it is far easier that driving or taking the train plus luggage to Manchester or London.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Prophead

Yes people can transfer via AMS. Heathrow wants to bring that traffic and income via the UK which will bring money into the economy.

With a third runway, expanded UK connectivity is by no means a given.

The Airports Commission recognised this in their final report:

"The Commission's forecasts reflect these [competing] pressures and suggest that without specific measures to support domestic connectivity even an expanded Heathrow may accommodate fewer domestic routes than the 7 served currently."

[rutankrd]

Code:

Tell that to all the people that fly from Leeds, Humberside, Durham, Norwich etc. to Amsterdam

Was actually going to caveat Schipol being probably to only exception and its bl**dy good at it too.

However remember this is a purpose built airport on reclaimed land and whilst has six yes that right six runways only three are ever used at any one time - morning peak two arrivals and one departure reverse later departure peaks.

The use of the East West runways are very much avoided as far as possible due noise abatement procedures.

So for much of the time landing rates actually aren't too different to Heathrow which has industries beating and excellent flow management.

Those holds do more than just filter they manage the approach slots grouping heavies as necessary . So its rather more complicated than simply first come first served.

Back to KLM Cityhopper be aware that the three East Coasters actual take substantial local high paying gas/oil traffic that support the services .

Oh and remember Leeds and Newcastle do retain a Competing Heathrow offering.

Norwich well i simply can't see it working to Heathrow R3 or no

Teeside might as well close as passenger airport imo and Humberside really is the Oil worker shuttle.

[rutankrd]

Code:

 With a third runway, expanded UK connectivity is by no means a given.

Agreed nor is it a god given right to expect it to be so.

And it has nothing to do with the primary reason for the commissioned report which was about once again RUNWAY capacity .

The airline business models can be taken in evidence however the report should have been devoid of potential favouritism imo.

[Prophead]

Agreed nor is it a god given right to expect it to be so.

Nobody says it is, hence the risk being almost completely taken on by the owners of LHR, which is another reason it is such a good deal for the UK.

And it has nothing to do with the primary reason for the commissioned report which was about once again RUNWAY capacity

The whole SE runway capacity argument came a long time after Heathrow announced plans to expand. The whole idea that you can build a runway anywhere in the SE no matter where was just a political escape route out of Heathrow expansion that had already been given the green light. The arguments for expanding LHR and LGW are separate cases and giving LGW a new runway doesn't change Heathrows expansion plans.

Remember that when the idea was first formed LHR and LGW were owned by the same company. They chose to expand/modernise LHR and have pretty much been doing so continually ever since.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Prophead

giving LGW a new runway doesn't change Heathrow's expansion plans

Of course it does.

There is no scenario on the horizon that sees LHR and LGW each building a new runway.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

I was waiting for shed to chime in with his north/south chip on his shoulder

Oh dear. Is that really the best you can do? And by the way, I refer to the UK regions in general (not just my own). The imbalance of state-funded infrastructure spending between the SE and all other regions of the UK is a matter of public record however much you may wish to dismiss that fact from consideration with derogatory remarks.

the reality is an expanded LHR benefits all the UK as much as it already does the south.

Repeating this mantra ad infinitum doesn't make it true. You have form for ignoring inconvenient data throughout this debate.

This £18bn figure is the very top estimate and it is more likely to be much much less than that.

If you adjudge this 'likely' presumably you will be happy to enlighten us on precisely where TfL's calculations are in error.

to Amsterdam and onto long haul flights as it is far easier that driving or taking the train plus luggage to Manchester or London.

AMS is a competitive option, hence the widespread offering of regional connections by KLM and others. However, Manchester Airport Rail Station is located at the heart of the terminals complex and is well connected across the North of England and lowland Scotland. It is also a very convenient option for many travellers.

hence the risk being almost completely taken on by the owners of LHR

Except for the small matter of £18Bn which isn't. And the rest may yet be underwritten by the taxpayer too.

another reason it is such a good deal for the UK.

You are becoming an increasingly desperate voice in your quest to solicit general acceptance for this absurd notion.

[Walnut]

One of the considerations of any LHR expansion is the large number of extra stands that would be needed At the moment BA have their a/c scattered all over the place. Low cost carriers whose a/c traditionally don't night stop have got round the problem by opening overseas bases. To have all your eggs (a/c) in one place usually leads to chaos when an a/p suffers delays due to w/x or strikes etc, BA always canx a large proportion of their S/H flts in these situations so I question whether an even a larger hub would really make their operation run any more smoothly.

[Ametyst1]

Rutankrd, please do not be so insulting towards me!

I did not even mention Liverpool in my post, nor did I contemplate avlink between Liverpool and Heathrow.

However, now that you mention it. Liverpool is a different city now than it was in the days when British Midland operated between Liverpool and Heathrow. And, the problem with BMA in those days is that the code-share phenomenon was in its infancy and the airline interlined with only a handful of airlines at Heathrow.

So, no sour grapes hear I am quite happy to use the train to get to London and Heathrow, or use Aer Lingus via Dublin when the need arises.

Incidentally, I would not agree that the Manchester Airport railway station is well positioned if you are using Terminal 3.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

So Shed, as you adjudge the Airport Commission's £5bn estimate as unlikely, presumably you will be happy to enlighten us on precisely where the AC's calculations are in error?

That's if you can post anything in the LHR forum without hyperbole or conjecture.

[Prophead]

Originally Posted by Prophead View Post
giving LGW a new runway doesn't change Heathrow's expansion plans
Of course it does.

There is no scenario on the horizon that sees LHR and LGW each building a new runway.

I meant it doesn't alter the fact that there is still a business case to expand LHR as a hub airport. Build a runway at Gatwick and you still have a case for the hub expansion at LHR even though I agree they will not give the go ahead to both.

This £18bn figure is the very top estimate and it is more likely to be much much less than that.
If you adjudge this 'likely' presumably you will be happy to enlighten us on precisely where TfL's calculations are in error.

Not in error as such, just inclusive of a whole load of works that will need doing anyway by 2030 even without expansion.

There is a lot of confusion over the exact figure required as this shows.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Common...structureCosts)

AMS is a competitive option, hence the widespread offering of regional connections by KLM and others. However, Manchester Airport Rail Station is located at the heart of the terminals complex and is well connected across the North of England and lowland Scotland. It is also a very convenient option for many travellers.

Please, it is used as the only other option is an expensive taxi ride on busy motorways. I have done it many times out of necessity and it is not convenient at all when you have an early morning flight, lots of luggage, kids and do not live on the actual direct rail route.

A short taxi ride, bags checked and gone then be sat with a coffee in T5 in 45 minutes is much more convenient believe me.