HEATHROW
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Middx.
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What Routes have been transferred ?
What routes have been moved fm BHX or MAN ?
Don-t understand the logic of what you are saying.
If they are holding slots , this means the routes and aircraft resources were already operating at LHR .They d6n-t need to move anything to cover these .
If they obtained additional new slots at LHR you could argue they move aircraft resources fm BHX or MAN to utilise these slots , but getting slots
at LHR is almost impossible , so can-t think what you mean ?
Don-t understand the logic of what you are saying.
If they are holding slots , this means the routes and aircraft resources were already operating at LHR .They d6n-t need to move anything to cover these .
If they obtained additional new slots at LHR you could argue they move aircraft resources fm BHX or MAN to utilise these slots , but getting slots
at LHR is almost impossible , so can-t think what you mean ?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not so veiled reference to Oneairline (Oneworld) and their influence on the long lost Cathay Pacific/Qantas and Iberia regional services and the case of Air India transferring the YYZ -UK - India services through LHR which IS a slot baby sitter.
Singapore cutting back MAN-Sin to just 3 weekly whilst INCREASING capacity at LHR to two A388 and a B77W per day.
BA relinquishing direct regional operations forcing passengers to route via LHR even on short hops to Paris and Frankfurt for instance (Well they actually still code share with FlyBe but do they advertise this NO !)
OH and how many times do you here this getting slots at LHR is impossible.
NO its NOT its slot restricted (at certain times of the day) however its not full, and airlines such as Arik, Oman, Jet and Kingfisher have gotten slots for daily flights.
Singapore cutting back MAN-Sin to just 3 weekly whilst INCREASING capacity at LHR to two A388 and a B77W per day.
BA relinquishing direct regional operations forcing passengers to route via LHR even on short hops to Paris and Frankfurt for instance (Well they actually still code share with FlyBe but do they advertise this NO !)
OH and how many times do you here this getting slots at LHR is impossible.
NO its NOT its slot restricted (at certain times of the day) however its not full, and airlines such as Arik, Oman, Jet and Kingfisher have gotten slots for daily flights.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Middx.
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These are virtually all commercial decisions by the airlines involved.
Nothing to do with slot hldg at LHR.
The BA regional services were losing BA loads of money and were basically taken over by BA. Forcing psgrs via LHR was not the aim....no connections fm BHX and very extended journey time fm MAN plus the yield received when fare prorated and cost to BA of transferring a psgr at LHR make this uneco nomic .Plus with Flybe replacing a lot of the services and the various National carriers continuing non-stop service little hope of getting any and especially high yield traffic to route via LHR.
If QF+CX+IB didn-t think it was in their own best interest they would not reduce regional services to direct psgrs to their LHR services. They are all in l put themseves first. Hence QF commenced LHRHKG which neither BA or CX were keen on
Nothing to do with slot hldg at LHR.
The BA regional services were losing BA loads of money and were basically taken over by BA. Forcing psgrs via LHR was not the aim....no connections fm BHX and very extended journey time fm MAN plus the yield received when fare prorated and cost to BA of transferring a psgr at LHR make this uneco nomic .Plus with Flybe replacing a lot of the services and the various National carriers continuing non-stop service little hope of getting any and especially high yield traffic to route via LHR.
If QF+CX+IB didn-t think it was in their own best interest they would not reduce regional services to direct psgrs to their LHR services. They are all in l put themseves first. Hence QF commenced LHRHKG which neither BA or CX were keen on
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: london
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR - domestic services
Domestic services excluding Belfast and Aberdeen (which will never be time competitive with high speed rail aka HS2) take up about 8% of slots at LHR with the majority of traffic being transfer. Only if HS2 runs direct to LHR will it capture these transfer passengers. If HS2 services LHR and other major UK cities such as Birmingham then more passengers from the West Midlands et al will hub at LHR rather than at AMS and CDG as at present.
See British Chamber of Commerce Report out today on Hub airports http://tinyurl.com/l6gujl
See British Chamber of Commerce Report out today on Hub airports http://tinyurl.com/l6gujl
A few comments on the above.
Firstly, are the domestic services profitable ? The answer is entirely dependent on how the arithmetic is done by the accountants to apportion the revenue from connecting passengers between the two services. I can show you several ways to do this, one will demonstrate the domestic services to be extremely profitable, another will show them as substantial loss makers. It all depends what the accounting team want to do (or are told to do by whichever management team is dominant at the time).
As I understand it BA have their own reasons for allocating connecting passenger revenue by attributing whatever the equivalent fare would be from London to the overseas destination to the main flight, and anything left over to the connecting domestic flight. If the fares are the same, as they often are, from London and (say) Manchester then a notional £1 is allocated to the domestic sector. You will see that working this way it does not take many connecting passenges before the domestics show a loss.
Of course if there is no connecting service then the passenger will likely travel via Amsterdam or elsewhere and then the whole revenue will be lost to BA. So it becomes a management judgement.
Revenue attribution is an age-old problem in the transport industry, not just confined to airlines, it afflicts the railway equally.
Regarding slots, these are generally not available at Heathrow except at very off-peak times, late evening and a bit more at weekends. Goodness, why else do you think that the majority of inbound flights need to hold around London so that the absolute optimum landing rate per hour can be achieved. It really is a complete waste to see slot-sitters, from several carriers, contributing to this.
Regional direct long-haul services have never done well for a variety of commercal reasons.
For a start there's not enough demand - Emirates could not come near filling an aircraft to Dubai alone, only by offering onward connections to 101 other points. Someone like Qantas does not have this available. Emirates probably also have a revenue attribution algorithm for multiple flights significantly different to BA.
Secondly the proportion of the overall demand which is for the high-yielding premium classes is far less from the provincial points than from London, which leads to standard configuration aircraft having unfilled seats at the front end. No need to go looking for why, it is just fact.
Thirdly, while say 30% of the potential UK-originating demand to a long-haul destination might be effectively handled through, say, Manchester, the proportion of inbound-originating pax heading for those points is far lower than that - maybe down to 10%. Incoming demand overwhelmingly favours London. This just doesn't give enough demand to get to a critical mass of capacity for, say twice daily to Singapore, and thus more passengers divert to the greater frequency at Heathrow, because some want a morning flight, some an evening flight, and Manchester, unlike Heathrow, could not provide both.
The airlines have long experience and know all this, and many have lost money along the way learning it. Why did Malaysian, for example, give up at Manchester ? Not part of an alliance. No connecting Heathrow flights to push people onto. It just didn't work commercially. Accept it.
Firstly, are the domestic services profitable ? The answer is entirely dependent on how the arithmetic is done by the accountants to apportion the revenue from connecting passengers between the two services. I can show you several ways to do this, one will demonstrate the domestic services to be extremely profitable, another will show them as substantial loss makers. It all depends what the accounting team want to do (or are told to do by whichever management team is dominant at the time).
As I understand it BA have their own reasons for allocating connecting passenger revenue by attributing whatever the equivalent fare would be from London to the overseas destination to the main flight, and anything left over to the connecting domestic flight. If the fares are the same, as they often are, from London and (say) Manchester then a notional £1 is allocated to the domestic sector. You will see that working this way it does not take many connecting passenges before the domestics show a loss.
Of course if there is no connecting service then the passenger will likely travel via Amsterdam or elsewhere and then the whole revenue will be lost to BA. So it becomes a management judgement.
Revenue attribution is an age-old problem in the transport industry, not just confined to airlines, it afflicts the railway equally.
Regarding slots, these are generally not available at Heathrow except at very off-peak times, late evening and a bit more at weekends. Goodness, why else do you think that the majority of inbound flights need to hold around London so that the absolute optimum landing rate per hour can be achieved. It really is a complete waste to see slot-sitters, from several carriers, contributing to this.
Regional direct long-haul services have never done well for a variety of commercal reasons.
For a start there's not enough demand - Emirates could not come near filling an aircraft to Dubai alone, only by offering onward connections to 101 other points. Someone like Qantas does not have this available. Emirates probably also have a revenue attribution algorithm for multiple flights significantly different to BA.
Secondly the proportion of the overall demand which is for the high-yielding premium classes is far less from the provincial points than from London, which leads to standard configuration aircraft having unfilled seats at the front end. No need to go looking for why, it is just fact.
Thirdly, while say 30% of the potential UK-originating demand to a long-haul destination might be effectively handled through, say, Manchester, the proportion of inbound-originating pax heading for those points is far lower than that - maybe down to 10%. Incoming demand overwhelmingly favours London. This just doesn't give enough demand to get to a critical mass of capacity for, say twice daily to Singapore, and thus more passengers divert to the greater frequency at Heathrow, because some want a morning flight, some an evening flight, and Manchester, unlike Heathrow, could not provide both.
The airlines have long experience and know all this, and many have lost money along the way learning it. Why did Malaysian, for example, give up at Manchester ? Not part of an alliance. No connecting Heathrow flights to push people onto. It just didn't work commercially. Accept it.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If QF+CX+IB didn-t think it was in their own best interest they would not reduce regional services to direct psgrs to their LHR services
This is a naive statement and plainly misses the point of business strategy and business models.
CX have stated they wanted to return to Manchester however have been frustrated by third parties.
Qantas left so long ago its not worth discussing anymore beyond the fact that the Hong Kong - LHR sectors flights (QF29/30) are under review.
As for Iberia well its true to say that the flexible fares operators have terminally damaged them especially in the regions and at Bareclona.
I do not hold or agree with the earlier poster (excepting the Air India operation) that LHR consolidation is simply about slot protection. Its far more complicated it includes resource commercial and financial considerations.
As for BA they have absolutely made a decision that even the short inter European traffic be routed over LHR and in preference to the codeshare agreement with Flybe. This at the very least this is a PR mistake and at worst a denigration of responsibility and the potential of easy revenue stream.
Sell ticket mark up and no operating costs. BA should be stating they ARE still in the regions, however their sales teams have always been instructed to sell via LHR even when direct services are available via codeshare and OW partners-FACT.
Try to book Manchester- Helsinki with BA they WILL route you via T5/T3 rather than on the twice daily and direct Finnair services still carrying BA codeshares. (You may even find that the LHR-HEL sector is a Finnair flight but that okay they got you via LHR), or Man-Chicago again they will route you through LHR (unnecessarily) rather than on the near daily AA flight and this is Only Trans-Atlantic service they codeshare on currently because they don't need Anti Trust protection for it- This is just Stupid !
This is a naive statement and plainly misses the point of business strategy and business models.
CX have stated they wanted to return to Manchester however have been frustrated by third parties.
Qantas left so long ago its not worth discussing anymore beyond the fact that the Hong Kong - LHR sectors flights (QF29/30) are under review.
As for Iberia well its true to say that the flexible fares operators have terminally damaged them especially in the regions and at Bareclona.
I do not hold or agree with the earlier poster (excepting the Air India operation) that LHR consolidation is simply about slot protection. Its far more complicated it includes resource commercial and financial considerations.
As for BA they have absolutely made a decision that even the short inter European traffic be routed over LHR and in preference to the codeshare agreement with Flybe. This at the very least this is a PR mistake and at worst a denigration of responsibility and the potential of easy revenue stream.
Sell ticket mark up and no operating costs. BA should be stating they ARE still in the regions, however their sales teams have always been instructed to sell via LHR even when direct services are available via codeshare and OW partners-FACT.
Try to book Manchester- Helsinki with BA they WILL route you via T5/T3 rather than on the twice daily and direct Finnair services still carrying BA codeshares. (You may even find that the LHR-HEL sector is a Finnair flight but that okay they got you via LHR), or Man-Chicago again they will route you through LHR (unnecessarily) rather than on the near daily AA flight and this is Only Trans-Atlantic service they codeshare on currently because they don't need Anti Trust protection for it- This is just Stupid !
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Age: 59
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHBM
Whilst your analysis is quite interesting as too the viability of
long-haul from the regions,you seem to think that your logic
only works one way.You state that Manchester cannot support
twice daily Singapore flights which is quite so......but you fail to
realise that Heathrow could not support its Singapore flights
without the feeders from the regions(flight/train/coach).
The business reason Singapore is gradually leaving Manchester
is because they need to utilise their VLA's at Heathrow and in
this un-economic time as always shrinkage occurs.
Why would they fly direct to Singapore from Manchester if they
didnt fill the plane (Ok yield is an issue)but from my limited
investigations they seemed to always fill the aircraft ex MAN pre VLA.
Emirates looks likely to go three daily in the near future without
feeders.......why is this.......it is as you state for onward travel
-which again cuts into the above airlines (SIA)business ex MAN- The
reasoning you use for Manchester can also be used for Heathrow
in that the daily tally ex LHR to Dubai would not be so many if it
was not for onward travel - Dubai is a hub as is Heathrow.
It makes me wince when I see BMI using amazonjets on some
services to Heathrow.
The points raised by others about BA's funneling of passengers
is valid in my opinion.
You seem a bit Heathrow'centric as opposed to my Man'centric
counter.
Business is business and has been proven in the last year to
operate in an entirely seperate way to most things in life.
Im going for a snooze.........
MM
Whilst your analysis is quite interesting as too the viability of
long-haul from the regions,you seem to think that your logic
only works one way.You state that Manchester cannot support
twice daily Singapore flights which is quite so......but you fail to
realise that Heathrow could not support its Singapore flights
without the feeders from the regions(flight/train/coach).
The business reason Singapore is gradually leaving Manchester
is because they need to utilise their VLA's at Heathrow and in
this un-economic time as always shrinkage occurs.
Why would they fly direct to Singapore from Manchester if they
didnt fill the plane (Ok yield is an issue)but from my limited
investigations they seemed to always fill the aircraft ex MAN pre VLA.
Emirates looks likely to go three daily in the near future without
feeders.......why is this.......it is as you state for onward travel
-which again cuts into the above airlines (SIA)business ex MAN- The
reasoning you use for Manchester can also be used for Heathrow
in that the daily tally ex LHR to Dubai would not be so many if it
was not for onward travel - Dubai is a hub as is Heathrow.
It makes me wince when I see BMI using amazonjets on some
services to Heathrow.
The points raised by others about BA's funneling of passengers
is valid in my opinion.
You seem a bit Heathrow'centric as opposed to my Man'centric
counter.
Business is business and has been proven in the last year to
operate in an entirely seperate way to most things in life.
Im going for a snooze.........
MM
Last edited by mickyman; 15th Jul 2009 at 07:55. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stockport
Age: 84
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rutankrd says:
This is incorrect, I've just looked on ba.com. MAN-HEL shows only the direct Finnair codeshares, perhaps because the timing of the BA LHR-HEL flights are such that it is not possible to connect with them from MAN. For MAN-ORD, the first five outbound options shown are via LGW, with a note that you pay your own bus fare from LGW to LHR. Then come two options via LHR, and only in eighth place the direct MAN-ORD codeshare, even though it has the earliest arrival and a later departure than the seven options that precede it.
The excuse is possibly that everything is ordered by departure time, but there may be more to it than that, perhaps an attempt to make the LGW services look better.
Try to book Manchester- Helsinki with BA they WILL route you via T5/T3 rather than on the twice daily and direct Finnair services still carrying BA codeshares. (You may even find that the LHR-HEL sector is a Finnair flight but that okay they got you via LHR), or Man-Chicago again they will route you through LHR (unnecessarily) rather than on the near daily AA flight and this is Only Trans-Atlantic service they codeshare on currently because they don't need Anti Trust protection for it- This is just Stupid !
The excuse is possibly that everything is ordered by departure time, but there may be more to it than that, perhaps an attempt to make the LGW services look better.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 2 DME
Age: 54
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to an article at timesonline from last July around there are around 1300 arrivals and departures at Heathrow on an average day, so if the estimate of domestic slots is 144 that is indeed over 10%.
I still personally believe that the Tories premise for scrapping domestic air services to London is fundamentally flawed because, as others have mentioned, it ignores the needs of passengers on connecting flights.
I still personally believe that the Tories premise for scrapping domestic air services to London is fundamentally flawed because, as others have mentioned, it ignores the needs of passengers on connecting flights.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if we wereto get the holding down to environmenatlly friendly levels with only TWO runways, ie no more round and round BNN / LAM / OCK / BIG, we would need to cut roughly 10% from exisiting traffic I suspect, so we have no more room for growth at Heathrow ever in this scenario.
Is that fair?
Given that the advantage of direct access to LHR into the rail network would ATTRACT passengers, surely this is incoherent. This bloody Villiers woman is a numpty!
Is that fair?
Given that the advantage of direct access to LHR into the rail network would ATTRACT passengers, surely this is incoherent. This bloody Villiers woman is a numpty!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conservatives deny Heathrow policy change : Heathrow Airport News Stories
I know this is a MASSIVE subject and the figures involved are truly gigantic but is it feasible for the runway NOT to be built?
What I currently don't understand is why the government want to increase flights from the mega-hub yet they are also increasing charges. That doesn't seem to work, surely?
However, for the Conservatives to keep pushing for the abandonment of the project, surely this is quite possibly the biggest suicide decision to make when it comes to aviation in the UK. T6 and a third runway will push the airport more towards Atlanta and Chicago and further from Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Paris. This is key. It is stupidly clear to every person with any little knowledge on Heathrow that it is the airport that every airline wants to serve. If you offered O'Leary a third runway and low cost terminal at Heathrow he would not only bite off your hand but your complete arm. The airport is big bucks to the UK and Continental airlines paying all those millions of pounds sterling for such a small number of slots clearly shows the continued potential the airport has.
We are currently in an economic decline, especially in the airline industry, but you will certainly not find ANY airline at Heathrow giving up it's slots because they are simply worth too much.
We are seeing hubs across the world growing quickly - Dubai's two airports being the main two which will add greater rivalry to Heathrow over the coming years. Heathrow is situated perfectly - US to the West, Europe on it's doorstep and Far East, obviously, to the East. What more could an airport ask for? Heathrow needs to compete and at the moment it's has so many restrictions against it.
I am all for high speed trains similar to those in France and Japan to deal with domestic flights. It will affect domestic airports but as more and more passengers head abroad to transit (AMS, CDG, FRA, MUC, DXB, DOH, HEL etc.) Heathrow - our main money spinner, is going to face the fall. It is clear to see that not only the trains, but also these competing bases have reduced flights dramatically around the UK. Added to that the number that have been chopped by mainly BA as the slots are more lucrative elsewhere.
Surely the Tories have it right in reducing the number of domestic services which in turn will increase the number of slots available at Heathrow but to do this it would involve a new enquiry, new discussions, more planning etc. and then another ten years added onto the development. By that time other hubs will have been and gone and Heathrow will still be struggling. It is right to reduce the domestic flights but there simply still won't be enough slots at Heathrow. It needs a third runway!
And don't get me started on the amount of time it takes to get things done in this country. I have a very good friend who works in New York. In the time it took for them to plan, discuss and build a block of flats, I only just received confirmation I could put in the foundations for a conservatory! Both projects were designed within a week of each other!
I find it amazing how this country takes so long to build anything.
If we were in any other country, the Tories wouldn't have time to change the decision if/when they come into power as it would already be half built!
Anyway...rant over!
I know this is a MASSIVE subject and the figures involved are truly gigantic but is it feasible for the runway NOT to be built?
What I currently don't understand is why the government want to increase flights from the mega-hub yet they are also increasing charges. That doesn't seem to work, surely?
However, for the Conservatives to keep pushing for the abandonment of the project, surely this is quite possibly the biggest suicide decision to make when it comes to aviation in the UK. T6 and a third runway will push the airport more towards Atlanta and Chicago and further from Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Paris. This is key. It is stupidly clear to every person with any little knowledge on Heathrow that it is the airport that every airline wants to serve. If you offered O'Leary a third runway and low cost terminal at Heathrow he would not only bite off your hand but your complete arm. The airport is big bucks to the UK and Continental airlines paying all those millions of pounds sterling for such a small number of slots clearly shows the continued potential the airport has.
We are currently in an economic decline, especially in the airline industry, but you will certainly not find ANY airline at Heathrow giving up it's slots because they are simply worth too much.
We are seeing hubs across the world growing quickly - Dubai's two airports being the main two which will add greater rivalry to Heathrow over the coming years. Heathrow is situated perfectly - US to the West, Europe on it's doorstep and Far East, obviously, to the East. What more could an airport ask for? Heathrow needs to compete and at the moment it's has so many restrictions against it.
I am all for high speed trains similar to those in France and Japan to deal with domestic flights. It will affect domestic airports but as more and more passengers head abroad to transit (AMS, CDG, FRA, MUC, DXB, DOH, HEL etc.) Heathrow - our main money spinner, is going to face the fall. It is clear to see that not only the trains, but also these competing bases have reduced flights dramatically around the UK. Added to that the number that have been chopped by mainly BA as the slots are more lucrative elsewhere.
Surely the Tories have it right in reducing the number of domestic services which in turn will increase the number of slots available at Heathrow but to do this it would involve a new enquiry, new discussions, more planning etc. and then another ten years added onto the development. By that time other hubs will have been and gone and Heathrow will still be struggling. It is right to reduce the domestic flights but there simply still won't be enough slots at Heathrow. It needs a third runway!
And don't get me started on the amount of time it takes to get things done in this country. I have a very good friend who works in New York. In the time it took for them to plan, discuss and build a block of flats, I only just received confirmation I could put in the foundations for a conservatory! Both projects were designed within a week of each other!
I find it amazing how this country takes so long to build anything.If we were in any other country, the Tories wouldn't have time to change the decision if/when they come into power as it would already be half built!
Anyway...rant over!
SWBKCB - I wasn't aware that there were any regular scheduled flights from Bristol or south Wales to London, so I'm not sure I understand what the time it takes to electrify the London-Swansea rail route has on flights within the UK. Perhaps you could clarify the point you're trying to make ?
Ok, if it is going to take eight years to upgrade an existing route, the prospect of gettting any other major rail infrastructure project up and running in a shorter time frame seems remote, so what is the prospect of having any sort of high speed rail alternative to the third runway?
Living in Newcastle, the train will currently get me into central London in 3 hours or so, so for me and my colleagues it's personal preference between the plane and the train for central London - however if you want to go on by plane from LHR, the train isn't really an option because of the trek between stations and out to LHR.
For high speed train to replace domestic air as a feeder into the LHR hub, the train would either have to go direct to LHR or be a through train extension of a London service - ain't going to happen soon, so the regional traffic will increasingly go to CDG, AMS, DXB, FRA, etc, etc...
Living in Newcastle, the train will currently get me into central London in 3 hours or so, so for me and my colleagues it's personal preference between the plane and the train for central London - however if you want to go on by plane from LHR, the train isn't really an option because of the trek between stations and out to LHR.
For high speed train to replace domestic air as a feeder into the LHR hub, the train would either have to go direct to LHR or be a through train extension of a London service - ain't going to happen soon, so the regional traffic will increasingly go to CDG, AMS, DXB, FRA, etc, etc...
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what do transiting passengers really contribute to the UK ?
Wow racedo you're right, not much really. I mean there's loads of other jobs right?
Let's just hand all the transit passengers to AMS / FRA / CDG and we can happily watch aviation go the way of manufacturing and then all fly with your employer Ryanair from good old Essex.
Well they keep BA going but that's just a big airline, used to be the national carrier. They spend money in the shops which is always good for a country to have some income. Oh and they support the thousands of workers in support, engineering, pilots, cabin crew, ATC, cleaners, drivers and the whole set up who deal with the additional flights that transit passengers bring. It's not as if we're in a recesssion and we're a well off country that can afford to be picky!
Wow racedo you're right, not much really. I mean there's loads of other jobs right?
Wow racedo you're right, not much really. I mean there's loads of other jobs right?
Billions have been spent by UK Government on road and rail links into Heathrow and support for the airport supposedly to support the industry but transiting passengers don't pay taxes, may or may not spend some money.
The net cost of a new runway and terminal while claiming it supports job just doesn't wash unless you can prove that there is a real benefit.
Let's just hand all the transit passengers to AMS / FRA / CDG and we can happily watch aviation go the way of manufacturing and then all fly with your employer Ryanair from good old Essex.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is so simple to see that without all the transferring passengers there would be less overall meaning there would be less people employed etc. etc.
You seriously think there are 68m O&D passengers for London? A high percentage of these will be transiting through the hub - one of BA's main sources of business and a growing number of BMI's.
The third runway is needed simply to keep up with the growth at other airports on the continent. Would you rather they put the money into the Dutch, French or German economy opposed to ours?
I don't know exact figures and it is impossible to say exactly how much they benefit. The reason OUR government has spend billions on accessing the airport is for US who pay OUR taxes to have them built. That is a ridiculous comment to make.
Oh - transiting passengers do pay for a ticket - money for the airline PLUS pay all the ADP etc.
It is very simple to see that more passengers at Heathrow is good for the economy. Jobs and businesses rely on it.
You seriously think there are 68m O&D passengers for London? A high percentage of these will be transiting through the hub - one of BA's main sources of business and a growing number of BMI's.
The third runway is needed simply to keep up with the growth at other airports on the continent. Would you rather they put the money into the Dutch, French or German economy opposed to ours?
Originally Posted by racedo
Billions have been spent by UK Government on road and rail links into Heathrow and support for the airport supposedly to support the industry but transiting passengers don't pay taxes, may or may not spend some money.
Oh - transiting passengers do pay for a ticket - money for the airline PLUS pay all the ADP etc.
It is very simple to see that more passengers at Heathrow is good for the economy. Jobs and businesses rely on it.