HEATHROW

[NWSRG]

Time for some joined up thinking...

The 3rd runway is essential...how much fuel is burnt in the hold en-route to LHR, or during taxi when trying to depart? The airport is creaking capacity wise, and any single incident can cause days of chaos...an additional runway will allow the airport to breathe again.

Saying all that...there is no doubt that diversity will also help provide a stronger transport infrastructure. High speed rail should be the primary method of national transportation for a nation the size of ours. With the right technology, rail would be virtually as fast as flight, and would free up (some) much needed capacity.

And as for Cameron, he will live with a 3rd runway...he'll really have no option.

[beamender99]

Runway 3 will be north of the existing runways and shorter.

Boundary Map | Heathrow | Homepage - Hillingdon Times

Heathrow Third Runway Plans



Heathrow Future

[Michael SWS]

Originally Posted by SkipnessOne Echo

Railway connectivity is a classic red herring. You could ban all flights from ABZ / EDI / GLA / NCL / MME / LBA / JER and still barely dent Heathrow's movement figures so the "lets build a high speed rail link" whilst being an excellent idea in itself, is not directly related to expansion of LHR. Travellers in these airports would simply connect abroad and our own long haul airlines would suffer as their market was reduced. It's way easier to connect through AMS or CDG than get a train to London then a walk to the plane to check in etc. There would be more job losses at BA and Virgin as a result.

Quite how this makes Heathrow the best airline in the world is anyone's guess.

It wouldn't. And nowhere in my post do I suggest that it would.

[befree]

A bigger LHR will take more routes that go via Manchester & Birmingham. You just have to look at the loss of routes over the last year to see airlines are desperate to keep slots at Heathrow. The sensable system is to auction slots at Heathrow so that airlines use them as if it cost money. We may then get a move to more direct flights from the likes of Mancester.

I cannot see the third runway getting the green light. MPs from London are not keen and it does nothing for MPs from the North. The way to make LHR work better is to run a few less flights added with more direct flights from regional airports.

[Skipness One Echo]

Flights from the regions to where? Ryanair do that really well, the foreign legacy carriers already fly to their hubs. Emirates, Continental etc are already here. Exactly who are you angling for? QANTAS and Cathay use Heathrow as a OneWorld hub, STAR are building a hub at Terminal 1 with LH and BMI coming together and Air New Zealand, United and US Airways already under the one roof.
Who is going to fly all these flights to the regions that doesn't already do it?

[jongeman]

Skipness One Echo

Will you please stop this aggressive stance you're taking. We all know your opinions, and you're putting me off reading this damn site. It's getting boring.

[HZ123]

Skipness for one of only 27 years of age you seem to know lots about everything. Do you actually work in aviation?

[CabinCrewe]

Yes very tiresome and predictable indeed. I suspect theres no formal link with the aviation industry at all, not that that is a prerequesit to post.

[Ametyst1]

I don't think Skipness is being aggressive he is merely stating a few home truths. Heathrow is not in competition with Manchester or Birmingham it is in competition with Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Paris CdG, Madrid and maybe Brussels when Lufthansa starts dictating terms at Brussels Airlines.

People forget that London is not just the capital city of the United Kingdom, it is a truly global city along with New York, Paris and Tokyo. London has a special status in the business and financial world. Despite the ecomomic downturn there is always a strong demand for services to Heathrow.

I would much prefer a third runway at Heathrow with an allocation of slots serving the regions so destinations such as Liverpool, Inverness, Plymouth, Newquay, Isle of Man and Guernsey can be once again lim=nked to an international network. In addition, Leeds & Bradford, Durham Tees Valley, Newcastle and Jersy could keep their Heathrow slots.

This time last year Manchester had 23 Long-haul scheduled flights a day, this year it is down to 15 a day a decrease of about 35%. The future for UK plc is Heathrow.

[Skipness One Echo]

I am a business analyst, a number cruncher of trends, models customer spends and other metrics. Sorry if people don't like me, and take personally what I say but I have been in aviation most of my life in one form or another and as a consultant I have no need to be a supporter of any airline. I tell it as I see it and the yields and numbers model it. I won't comment without a good allegory or example from the past to back it up.

I'll say it one more time as it bears repeating in big shiny letters.
1) No one is prevented from flying from the regions because of Heathrow.
2) The mass market for UK legacy carriers is London and London alone
3) Foreign legacy carriers may serve their offshore hubs quite successfully from the regions, however Alliance pressures on certain carriers mean an extra London rotation is more likely
4) Outside of London, the future of UK commercial carriers is Loco ( including flybe ) or Eastern type high cost high frequency carriers.

In answer to HZ123, I don't work in aviation, I work FOR aviation in a consultancy role as it pays way better and the pressure on wages and Ts and Cs within aviation is terminally downward. Think of that the next time someone is rifling through your possessions on a daily basis as you got to work on the flight deck.

This gives me insight into underlying data denied to customer facing staff. As this is an open forum I am free to air relevant views, give historical parallels where I think they are valid and if you disagree, either block me or try coming up with a cogent argument backed up by numbers and stats because at the end of the day, in business, that's the bottom line.

cabincrewe it's spelled "prerequisite"

[WHBM]

I'm with S1E in all of this.

Heathrow is the desired point for :

10% of UK-originating European IT passengers
30% of UK leisure passengers
40% approx of the UK population overall
50% of UK business passengers
70% of UK-originating premium pax
80% of inbound pax
90% of inbound premium pax

That's how it is. No hype, no favoritism, just reality.

[Michael SWS]

Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo

I have found that cabin crew have no business acumen whatsoever. If they did, they would be earning way more and getting on in life rather than serving tea and coffee.

You may know a lot, mate, but you're not very nice.

[eggc]

Heathrow is the desired point for :

10% of UK-originating European IT passengers
30% of UK leisure passengers
40% approx of the UK population overall
50% of UK business passengers
70% of UK-originating premium pax
80% of inbound pax
90% of inbound premium pax

Rubbish !!! Heathrow and desired do not belong in the same sentance.

People fly from there because there is no regional alternatives. Qantas filled a daily 744 from MAN for years and years till BA got involved, now we HAVE to go via LHR, and certainly do not desire to do so.

Given a choice the flying public outside the South East do not want to have to go to London for long haul - we are forced too.

[daz211]

Well said how many passengers traveling by road to LHR or LGW
have to pass STN or LTN.

I hate the M25 but to take the M25 and then have to fight my way through LHR is just not funny.

Many people would love the chance to fly longhaul from STN.

Well the chance to fly longhaul from STN is a few steps closer with AirasiaX starting flights to OZ via KL and Dubai starting next month with
Air Sylhet.

Not to mention the news on the Ryanair thread re LONGHAUL!

[Skipness One Echo]

Qantas filled a daily 744 from MAN for years

For the record what was the routing on this flight? I seem to remember it was an extension from Heathrow and was never filled at Manchester as it picked up passengers at Heathrow and Singapore / Bangkok. Hence the reason QANTAS still got the passengers without needing to send a mostly empty B747-400 on a UK domestic errand when the BA codeshare kicked in.
The same happens at the other end for BA, passengers from Melbourne and Perth being fed into Sydney by QANTAS, all going to help the bottom line in a VERY tough market.

Given a choice the flying public outside the South East do not want to have to go to London for long haul - we are forced too.

Manchester has Emirates, Singapore, Continental, Delta, US Airways, PIA, Qatar, Etihad and all. Foreign carriers seem to manage serving their hubs from MAN quite well. Birmingham has Continental and Emirates, even Newcastle has Emirates, allowing Australia to be a one stop trip.

The issue is London being a proper world city with a world class hub. I think it is great that the regions have a good choice of links.

[Musket90]

Skipness - I agree with the need for LHR runway 3 and the reasons you give, however I am disappointed about your comments regarding those with no business acumen serving tea and coffee. If it wasn't for cabin crew passenger carrying aircraft would not be permitted to fly. Your aviation business knowledge, number crunching etc. experience seems to lack people skills, but hey - your well paid so what does it matter.

Everyone has a different role to play in working life and many, like you, have worked very hard to achieve what they have, so don't not knock it.

[eggc]

Ohhh, thats fine then...lets have 30 flights a day to JFK, 15 a day to Australia, all from LHR, which requires a 3rd runway to be sustainable, and make the entire UK population travel to LHR for a long haul flight.

What percentage of LHR pax live north of Birmingham ?

There is no reason MAN, BHX, GLA could not handle these pax, maybe even enough of them that LHR would not need a 3rd runway.

All it takes is a big sign at LHR saying "AIRSPACE FULL" and a carrier to commit to the nation rather than just its capital.

Bring on the yield & "London is the center of the universe" argument again....

[apaddyinuk]

Also, I have found that cabin crew have no business acumen whatsoever. If they did, they would be earning way more and getting on in life rather than serving tea and coffee. I worked pretty hard to get where I am, and I think I understand the dynamics and pressures of modern business more than many on here.

Thats a tad harsh! My degree is in Marketing with my masters in aviation management (what was I thinking??? ) and I have a very good business acumen thank you very much! I "chose" to fly cos Im still relatively young, have no ties and want to enjoy my life a little before I get dug into the stressful ladder climb of a marketing career!!! I had intended to be out of it this winter but think Im going to hang on for a while longer until the economy picks up!
Now I may be just one "exception" in the near 15000 crew who work in my airline but I know Im not! There are a hell of a lot of crew out there who are bloody bright and intelligent people and deserve to be given some credit, but yeah, there are also the percentage who are just doing the job to pay the bills or have got themselves stuck in a rut...and sadly a lower standard of crew who actually still think the job is "glamorous and classy" but perhaps dont have two braincells to rub together, this job attracts and appeals to allsorts!

So in a nutshell.... Dont put us down Skipness! Generalising does nothing for ones argument and although I agree with almost everything you say in various topics on here please just leave the specific job bashing out of it!

[Skipness One Echo]

Apologies, I have deleted the remark. I should know better than to generalise. I had someone have a go at me a few posts back and it brought back traumatic memories of the one and only cabin crew I ever dated. A Concorde CC who talked only about themselves for what felt like an entire ice age........gave whole new meaning to shallow. ( digging a bigger hole ? )

I reiterate that by and large most cabin crew I have flown with have been great (1) and I apologise for an ill thought out and untrue angry remark.

*dons flame proof jacket and runs like Hell*

(1) with the exception of a certain "Irish" airline based out of Stansted-grad. You're bad. So bad. Bad doesn't begin to cover it. Scary. As in frightening. I mean giving whole new meaning to scary. When the passenegers laugh at the cabin announcement I don't feel confident. But cheap, so I have only myself to blame.

[LHR27C]

Despite all the angst, S1E is right on virtually every count here.

Rubbish !!! Heathrow and desired do not belong in the same sentance.

Heathrow today is arguably the most important airport on the planet. You cannot underestimate the huge demand, especially for premium travel, that it generates. It is the main gateway to probably one of the two most important cities in the world and its economic significance cannot be understated.

If you meant not desired in terms of quality of airport experience, take a stroll through Terminal 5, easily the best airport experience in the UK and one of the nicest outside Asia.

Given a choice the flying public outside the South East do not want to have to go to London for long haul - we are forced too.

What can people on here not understand about a free market? Airlines are companies out to make a profit. They will fly routes where there is demand and routes that do not generate sufficient revenue will be axed. No one is stopping any airline from flying longhaul services from the regions, but the fact that there are few services suggests the regions are maybe not the pot of gold some on here think.

Notice for instance that since BA axed MAN-JFK, no one has stepped up to fill the gap. MAN has lost a lot of longhaul services over the years, not through some bizarre desire by airlines to make people travel via London for the sake of it, but because demand has dropped.

There is no reason MAN, BHX, GLA could not handle these pax, maybe even enough of them that LHR would not need a 3rd runway.

If there was no reason that MAN, BHX, GLA etc could not handle these pax, they would be doing so today. But oh look, they're not, and the reason is entirely economical. The only longhaul services out of any UK regional airports are by carriers linking the regions to their hubs and relying on onward connecting traffic.

People may be tired of hearing the "importance of London" argument but like it or loath it, it is true. Airlines are businesses out to make money and if London will do that where the regions won't, they'll set their routes accordingly. If airports such as MAN are really such a goldmine, why has it been overtaken by STN recently so that London's three airports are the top three for pax in the UK, and why has its longhaul services shrunk so much? The simple notion of demand and supply.