HEATHROW
If BA want to increase throughput at Heathrow they could consider how on European routes they replaced a whole lot of the 757s with 737-400s, and in turn replaced these with a large A319 fleet, going down in size each time. Total BA European departures are about the same number as they were in 757 times, but they have downsized aircraft twice since then.
BMI even more so. Routes I remember with solid A321s now have 50-seat Embraers !
Regarding the Asian cities, there are actually few practical contenders. Malaysian are not in OneWorld yet so offer no onward connectivity to BA from KL. Seoul is a basketcase for just about everybody from Europe and North America - Korean and Asiana between them just flood every destination with capacity and low fares, no profit potential there, especially as 90% of the traffic from Europe originates from the Korean end, who would never dream of using a non-national carrier. Jakarta and Manila are low-fare markets, much activity but not a lot of F/C/PE potential there.
BMI even more so. Routes I remember with solid A321s now have 50-seat Embraers !
Regarding the Asian cities, there are actually few practical contenders. Malaysian are not in OneWorld yet so offer no onward connectivity to BA from KL. Seoul is a basketcase for just about everybody from Europe and North America - Korean and Asiana between them just flood every destination with capacity and low fares, no profit potential there, especially as 90% of the traffic from Europe originates from the Korean end, who would never dream of using a non-national carrier. Jakarta and Manila are low-fare markets, much activity but not a lot of F/C/PE potential there.
Last edited by WHBM; 12th Oct 2011 at 15:15. Reason: Misspelt Seoul
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the case of GLA, the loss of 5 BMI Airbuses a day made prices on BA go through the roof on some days so more capacity is welcomed. At the minute, BA's current services to China are not jam packed so not sure why flying more fresh air around would help. Indeed even Air China only offer a single A330-200 on LHR-PEK, down from a B744M a few years back. The volume on BA Euro services matters little if the yield is at BMI levels, if the A319 works and allows frequency to be maintained, leave it be.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London
Age: 51
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Groundloop; WHBM; Skipness
Agree with all of you. Can BAA now explain why then. they were using the ecnonomic arguement of these cities in the Far East to scaremonger the government and push for expansion if the demand is just not there? Besides, Gatwick can easily fill this gap if BA are not concerned about connecting traffic.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T4 Aegean
Noticed tonight that Aegean are operating a LHR-LCA service from T4 whereas the rest of the operation is with STAR in T1. Anyone know why they're splitting the operation?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: In bratty land
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow East ( New Terminal 2 or is it 1??)
Been looking at the construction of said Terminal , anyone have any info on how this is going to work ?? as present construction is appears to be being boarded up at one end ( nearest present T1 ) so is the plan to open the presently under construction end first ( ready for Olympics ?) or is this going to be another BAA LHR cock up , anyone in the know ??
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disorganisation on the T5 Transit after pier C opened
Have others noticed the Heathrow Terminal 5 Transit from the main terminal to the B and (now) C piers has become increasingly disorganised since pier C opened.
Still just the two trains running backwards and forwards on their own tracks, but compared to the last few years of the B pier only, when it worked fine, the extension to the C pier seems to have led to much greater and notably more erratic service intervals than before, with the two trains tending to get close to each other, then a very long interval before the first one manages to come round again.
BAA now need to deploy attendants at the B station to "manage" inbound passengers there, as one of the things also happening is that after a long interval one train then fills up at C, and people then cannot get into it at B. Unfortunately said attendants, in best BAA fashion, do not seem to have a clue about how to handle the crowds, and waste even more of travellers time by sending them to the inappropriate side.
Still just the two trains running backwards and forwards on their own tracks, but compared to the last few years of the B pier only, when it worked fine, the extension to the C pier seems to have led to much greater and notably more erratic service intervals than before, with the two trains tending to get close to each other, then a very long interval before the first one manages to come round again.
BAA now need to deploy attendants at the B station to "manage" inbound passengers there, as one of the things also happening is that after a long interval one train then fills up at C, and people then cannot get into it at B. Unfortunately said attendants, in best BAA fashion, do not seem to have a clue about how to handle the crowds, and waste even more of travellers time by sending them to the inappropriate side.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those that didn't see it, the BBC Politics Show had a report on Heathrow's 3rd runway today, can be seen on BBC iplayer. SMB and BAA were arguing that the UK economy will lose out on £1.4bn per year without expansion, Transport Minister Theresa Villiers said they wanted airports to get better rather than bigger and the program pointed out that the Transport Secretary is pretty much anti-aviation having promised to oppose Heathrow expansion.
Unfortunately the panel on the show seemed clueless with the reporter on it saying fuel is 'predicted' to reach $500 per barrell by 2015, so we didn't need to expand as the industry would soon be dead, apparently we will have alternative modes of transport instead, she must be expecting the transporter from Star Trek to be invented soon! The other panelist reckoned BA needed to give up on attracting transfer passengers and then all would be rosy.
It will be interesting to see what effect SMB, now Lord Glendonbrook has on the Tory leaders given he is one of the parties largest donors.
Unfortunately the panel on the show seemed clueless with the reporter on it saying fuel is 'predicted' to reach $500 per barrell by 2015, so we didn't need to expand as the industry would soon be dead, apparently we will have alternative modes of transport instead, she must be expecting the transporter from Star Trek to be invented soon! The other panelist reckoned BA needed to give up on attracting transfer passengers and then all would be rosy.
It will be interesting to see what effect SMB, now Lord Glendonbrook has on the Tory leaders given he is one of the parties largest donors.
News from the Prime Minister's office :
BBC News - David Cameron vows to boost infrastructure projects
"David Cameron has promised an 'all-out mission' to kick-start infrastructure projects and revive the economy."
Ah, that's interesting. Somehow seems to be completely the opposite of what they intend for Heathrow's infrastructure.
"But he urged people to be optimistic, pointing to growing trade with India and China".
More interest. Remind me, Prime Minister, what is the ONLY airport in the UK that airlines find it commercially worthwhile to operate to India and China from ? Would it be Heathrow by any chance ? The airport with no more slots at all available for such flights ?
"Mr Cameron spelled out a three-point plan based on confronting Britain's debts, improving competitiveness and building global trade."
Right then. So we are going to build global trade by appointing a Transport Minister who HATES, publically, the only significant airport for global business travel from Britain
BBC News - David Cameron vows to boost infrastructure projects
"David Cameron has promised an 'all-out mission' to kick-start infrastructure projects and revive the economy."
Ah, that's interesting. Somehow seems to be completely the opposite of what they intend for Heathrow's infrastructure.
"But he urged people to be optimistic, pointing to growing trade with India and China".
More interest. Remind me, Prime Minister, what is the ONLY airport in the UK that airlines find it commercially worthwhile to operate to India and China from ? Would it be Heathrow by any chance ? The airport with no more slots at all available for such flights ?
"Mr Cameron spelled out a three-point plan based on confronting Britain's debts, improving competitiveness and building global trade."
Right then. So we are going to build global trade by appointing a Transport Minister who HATES, publically, the only significant airport for global business travel from Britain
More hot air from our weak leader. Nothing will be done to improve LHR. We all know the airport is at full capacity. The only thing that can be done is the improvement in terminal facilities such as terminal 2.
The third runway has been talked about for ever and transport ministers have changed. Some for some against. Now we have someone against it so nothing will happen.
I do wish politicians would keep their mouths shut!
The third runway has been talked about for ever and transport ministers have changed. Some for some against. Now we have someone against it so nothing will happen.
I do wish politicians would keep their mouths shut!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Labour U Turn...
Labour Rule Out 3rd Runwayl
'Plans for a third runway at Heathrow have finally been scrapped after Labour joined the Coalition in ruling out an expansion at the airport.
The controversial plans, which attracted widespread criticism from environmentalists, are now 'off the agenda', despite a third runway being backed by the previous Labour government.
The Shadow Transport Secretary, Maria Eagle, explained to The Guardian that the reason for Labour's U-turn on the proposed runway was due to the local environmental impact.
She said: 'The answer for the south-east is not going to be to fall back on the third runway at Heathrow... it is off the agenda.'
Labour Rule Out 3rd Runwayl
'Plans for a third runway at Heathrow have finally been scrapped after Labour joined the Coalition in ruling out an expansion at the airport.
The controversial plans, which attracted widespread criticism from environmentalists, are now 'off the agenda', despite a third runway being backed by the previous Labour government.
The Shadow Transport Secretary, Maria Eagle, explained to The Guardian that the reason for Labour's U-turn on the proposed runway was due to the local environmental impact.
She said: 'The answer for the south-east is not going to be to fall back on the third runway at Heathrow... it is off the agenda.'
Comments earlier have made me think a little more. Let us suppose that the demand for flying to/from LHR increases over the next 5 or 10 years. Suppose also that a new runway is not built, and that there is little or no other significant runway capacity increase.
The new T2 / East is being built, and will be largely operational by about 2014 depending on what you count as operational.
Thus, in a few years time, we expect terminal capacity to significantly increase, but runway capacity to remain largely unchanged. Thus no airline can gain a competitive advantage by suddenly adding *lots* more rotations on a route without paying a heavy price for the extra slots.
A good chunk of flying at LHR is to the rest of Europe, some of it in planes of an A319 size - I'm ignoring what BMI are doing to keep slots warm as this will not last much longer.
How feasible is it for the main European airlines over a 5 year timeframe to increase the size of planes flying into LHR - maybe an A319 becomes an A320 while an A320 becomes an A321, but still remain commercially viable ? I note also BA's new use of a daily 767 to Glasgow. One immediate issue, is whether sufficient orders have been placed with Airbus and Boeing in a suitable timeframe given annual aircraft production capacity
Is this just tinkering around the edges, or is this a realistic way to squeeze a lot more passengers through Heathrow without increasing the number of flights (even if noise increases) ?
The new T2 / East is being built, and will be largely operational by about 2014 depending on what you count as operational.
Thus, in a few years time, we expect terminal capacity to significantly increase, but runway capacity to remain largely unchanged. Thus no airline can gain a competitive advantage by suddenly adding *lots* more rotations on a route without paying a heavy price for the extra slots.
A good chunk of flying at LHR is to the rest of Europe, some of it in planes of an A319 size - I'm ignoring what BMI are doing to keep slots warm as this will not last much longer.
How feasible is it for the main European airlines over a 5 year timeframe to increase the size of planes flying into LHR - maybe an A319 becomes an A320 while an A320 becomes an A321, but still remain commercially viable ? I note also BA's new use of a daily 767 to Glasgow. One immediate issue, is whether sufficient orders have been placed with Airbus and Boeing in a suitable timeframe given annual aircraft production capacity
Is this just tinkering around the edges, or is this a realistic way to squeeze a lot more passengers through Heathrow without increasing the number of flights (even if noise increases) ?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The business model needs frequency and the aircraft are only being filled up to A319 size on a number of routes. Hence you can increase size, decrease frequency and watch your connectivity options decrease as you need to kick your heels between flights and also lose your frequent fliers to whom time is money.
BA moved anything smaller than a B757 out of LHR when Robert Ayling took charge, let's just say they went onto order lots of A319s for LHR a few years later! The politicians are just angling for votes telling people what they want to hear. Without being offensive, the current crop lack business experience and working in the real world, hence their ability to make key strategic decisions in good time is screwed as there are not supposed to be any losers. I suspect LHR will get Runway 3 but it will be late, there will injuncitons and battles all the way to the Supremem Court and someone will probably die under a bulldozer wearing a Guy Fawkes mask. I know this sounds very arrogant of me but realistically and affordably, the only way to keep the country connected and competitive is LHR and runway 3.
All talk of shiny new floating airports on the side of London furthest from the M4 business community, with no noise pollution is pretence. Politicians only see in terms of the electoral cycle of four to five years, which is why so many short term decisions have got us here today. PFI springs to mind. "Schools and Hospitals For All" (off balance sheet) that we'll pay many times over the market rate for but it got the votes. Windfarms, like Boris Island would be, are a disaster for birds, thousands cut to pieces in the name of "Ecomentalism" on a business model whose numbers and subsidy make Network Rail like Ockham's Razor.
BA moved anything smaller than a B757 out of LHR when Robert Ayling took charge, let's just say they went onto order lots of A319s for LHR a few years later! The politicians are just angling for votes telling people what they want to hear. Without being offensive, the current crop lack business experience and working in the real world, hence their ability to make key strategic decisions in good time is screwed as there are not supposed to be any losers. I suspect LHR will get Runway 3 but it will be late, there will injuncitons and battles all the way to the Supremem Court and someone will probably die under a bulldozer wearing a Guy Fawkes mask. I know this sounds very arrogant of me but realistically and affordably, the only way to keep the country connected and competitive is LHR and runway 3.
All talk of shiny new floating airports on the side of London furthest from the M4 business community, with no noise pollution is pretence. Politicians only see in terms of the electoral cycle of four to five years, which is why so many short term decisions have got us here today. PFI springs to mind. "Schools and Hospitals For All" (off balance sheet) that we'll pay many times over the market rate for but it got the votes. Windfarms, like Boris Island would be, are a disaster for birds, thousands cut to pieces in the name of "Ecomentalism" on a business model whose numbers and subsidy make Network Rail like Ockham's Razor.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle NI
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skippy
Have to agree with you on this one LHR is the only show in town, Boris Island has merit but it's the wrong side of London.
The timetable for R3 is more difficult, the biggest risk would come if Justine Greening decides tonallow the sale of set aside land bought to protect the runway option, that would probably game over!
I can't see this coalition government agreeing to R3 and I understand their planned aviation White paper is now shuffled off to 2013, Labour said doing nothing wasn't an option back in 97, but did nothing!
The whole green thing, worthwhile or not is causing huge damage to the people it's meant to protect, the price of food is being driven up by crops being grown to provide fuel, this forces up meat prices, household energy bills are funding all these wind farms and as pilots we get to see more of them than most from our eye in the sky, I can't be scientific about it but I would estimate they are not turning at least 1 in 7 days and at any one time 1 in 10 are not working even when it's windy, sooner but I expect later someone will say enough. HS2 is a joke
The timetable for R3 is more difficult, the biggest risk would come if Justine Greening decides tonallow the sale of set aside land bought to protect the runway option, that would probably game over!
I can't see this coalition government agreeing to R3 and I understand their planned aviation White paper is now shuffled off to 2013, Labour said doing nothing wasn't an option back in 97, but did nothing!
The whole green thing, worthwhile or not is causing huge damage to the people it's meant to protect, the price of food is being driven up by crops being grown to provide fuel, this forces up meat prices, household energy bills are funding all these wind farms and as pilots we get to see more of them than most from our eye in the sky, I can't be scientific about it but I would estimate they are not turning at least 1 in 7 days and at any one time 1 in 10 are not working even when it's windy, sooner but I expect later someone will say enough. HS2 is a joke
What Justine Greening thinks are the three greatest problems in life for her well-heeled constituents in Putney :
".... Whether its Heathrow, crime, or the District Line, I’ll be there working with residents to make sure our views are listened to and acted upon...."
The Conservative Party | People | Members of Parliament | Justine Greening MP
With ministers like that, who needs enemies ?
".... Whether its Heathrow, crime, or the District Line, I’ll be there working with residents to make sure our views are listened to and acted upon...."
The Conservative Party | People | Members of Parliament | Justine Greening MP
With ministers like that, who needs enemies ?
Skipness - I agree that frequency is necessary. However, if there are no new slots available in large numbers, then no airline gets to increase frequency beyond what exists at the moment. Therefore, if IAG, Air France - KLM, Lufthansa, SAS, and all their subsidiaries are unable to gain more slots, they all end up compelled to increase the size of the aircraft in use, or start additional flights from other airports in the south east (e.g. LH to Gatwick)
True, this does not permit the opening of routes to new destinations or increase frequencies, but how much of an impact does this have in squeezing more passengers through 2 runways ?
True, this does not permit the opening of routes to new destinations or increase frequencies, but how much of an impact does this have in squeezing more passengers through 2 runways ?