HEATHROW
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really?? Why??? The crews can come from the UK, the ground services are UK provided and the aircraft are built in bits everywhere these days...............
And if as someone else posted Middle Eastern airlines are already siphoning off long haul traffic from regional airports why isn't our large UK based airline offering competition??
Lets face it BA have always claimed to lose money on any flight that isn't out of LHR or even on any flight anywhere period (eg London Aberdeen)
And if as someone else posted Middle Eastern airlines are already siphoning off long haul traffic from regional airports why isn't our large UK based airline offering competition??
Lets face it BA have always claimed to lose money on any flight that isn't out of LHR or even on any flight anywhere period (eg London Aberdeen)
The UK airline, BA in this case is clearly offering competition in an identical way to the large middle east airlines. One stop access to the world from the UK regions via a hub. With BA it is LHR, EK use DXB, QR use DXB, EY use AUH. What you are really saying is "It's sooooo unfair that like Emirates use B777s and A380s and BA have nothing but silly wee A320s from GLA/NCL/MAN/insert airport." It's the aviation equivalent of being a size queen.....
I think the core UK domestics do well out of LHR with BA, I am not aware that any are loss making, I understand EDI does rather well and ABZ has some serious oil traffic. GLA is now a LHR monopoly with the B767 returning on some flights and MAN has lost BMI allowing BA to consolidate flights and increase yields. I suspect you are misrepresenting that BA couldn't make point to point regional flying profitable. I think that is very true alas. They couldn't swing that if the fate of creation itself depended on it.
BAGSO wrote..
What on earth is it going to be? Banana shaped? Cobbled?
No it will be a bog standard 2500m strip - identical to 22L at JFK which I land 747s on regularly. It will suffice for a very large proportion of LHR traffic contrary to Ms Greenings ideas of Perf A......
It's not even going to be a proper runway for goodness sake.
No it will be a bog standard 2500m strip - identical to 22L at JFK which I land 747s on regularly. It will suffice for a very large proportion of LHR traffic contrary to Ms Greenings ideas of Perf A......
Last edited by ETOPS; 31st Aug 2012 at 05:05.
No it will be a bog standard 2500m strip - identical to 22L at JFK which I land 747s on regularly. It will suffice for a very large proportion of LHR traffic contrary to Ms Greenings ideas of Perf A......
AFAIK, as per my previous post, the strip would indeed be 2500m, but the declared distances will be 2200m (similar to the LCY arrangement).
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Windsorian
Thanks for the links, though I'm not entirely sure whether you agree with me or disagree?!
It is clear that BAA were forced to sell LGW in order to promote competition between it and LHR, which it implies had been stifled due to the interests of having the same owner.
Therefore, it would surely make sense that the new onwers of LGW turn it into a genuine rival hub? It can't be any coincidence that a nice big Emirates A380 is on the front cover, along with a BA aircraft in the background?!
Also I realise that the owners will not build a new rwy before 2019, but my point was that I would be amazed if they do not try once that deadline is up. It would also surely be far easier to get agreement for one at LGW than LHR seeing as local villages wouldnt be bulldozed, the noise footprint is far smaller and IF there is a RW3 agreed at LHR by then, surely any arguments on environmental grounds would have been blown out of the water?
@PAXboy
I am aware that alternative hubs were tried, in MAN and at LGW, but that was 20 or 30 years ago when the economic situation and world air travel were far different than what they are now. With the benefit of hindsight, I am fairly certain that one of those would have been persisted with if they had known that a third runway at LHR would STILL not be in place in 2012!
I guess my point is that the airlines are all waiting around for the Government to do something, when in reality we know how (un)likely that is to happen, so why dont they use some initiative and apply the economics of 2012 to plans that were written off 30 years ago? After all, isn't the plan for an eastuary-style airport just a re-writing of the Maplin Sands one of all those years ago?!
Thanks for the links, though I'm not entirely sure whether you agree with me or disagree?!
It is clear that BAA were forced to sell LGW in order to promote competition between it and LHR, which it implies had been stifled due to the interests of having the same owner.
Therefore, it would surely make sense that the new onwers of LGW turn it into a genuine rival hub? It can't be any coincidence that a nice big Emirates A380 is on the front cover, along with a BA aircraft in the background?!
Also I realise that the owners will not build a new rwy before 2019, but my point was that I would be amazed if they do not try once that deadline is up. It would also surely be far easier to get agreement for one at LGW than LHR seeing as local villages wouldnt be bulldozed, the noise footprint is far smaller and IF there is a RW3 agreed at LHR by then, surely any arguments on environmental grounds would have been blown out of the water?
@PAXboy
I am aware that alternative hubs were tried, in MAN and at LGW, but that was 20 or 30 years ago when the economic situation and world air travel were far different than what they are now. With the benefit of hindsight, I am fairly certain that one of those would have been persisted with if they had known that a third runway at LHR would STILL not be in place in 2012!
I guess my point is that the airlines are all waiting around for the Government to do something, when in reality we know how (un)likely that is to happen, so why dont they use some initiative and apply the economics of 2012 to plans that were written off 30 years ago? After all, isn't the plan for an eastuary-style airport just a re-writing of the Maplin Sands one of all those years ago?!
Last edited by Libertine Winno; 31st Aug 2012 at 09:14.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If BAA and BA can't make LGW a commercially viable hub, by what mechanism can GIP? BA aren't making that mistake again, EZY are already dominant, nobody has ever willingly left LHR for LGW and made it a success.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Libertine Winno
I think we are missing some key information at present, in particular :-
1. Within the UK's Climate Change obligations, how much additional runway capacity can be built ?
I've read the CCC's International Aviation & Shipping Review and recognise their importance to the economy.
2. If the government allows runway expansion, how will it be allocated around the country in an attempt to re-balance the economy ?
In particular Birmingham airport, as Manchester has recently built a second runway.
3. In the SE where additional runways can be physically built, how these would fit into their competition policy ?
4. The relationship between runways and night flights and in particular the need to operate 24/7 ?
5. The true passenger potential at Heathrow following a complete transformation of the terminals and stands into a more efficient "Toastrack" ?
I'm trying hard to remain open minded, and follow people's coments with interest.
I think we are missing some key information at present, in particular :-
1. Within the UK's Climate Change obligations, how much additional runway capacity can be built ?
I've read the CCC's International Aviation & Shipping Review and recognise their importance to the economy.
2. If the government allows runway expansion, how will it be allocated around the country in an attempt to re-balance the economy ?
In particular Birmingham airport, as Manchester has recently built a second runway.
3. In the SE where additional runways can be physically built, how these would fit into their competition policy ?
4. The relationship between runways and night flights and in particular the need to operate 24/7 ?
5. The true passenger potential at Heathrow following a complete transformation of the terminals and stands into a more efficient "Toastrack" ?
I'm trying hard to remain open minded, and follow people's coments with interest.
Last edited by Windsorian; 31st Aug 2012 at 13:27.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regards the climate change obligations, it hasnt seemed to rear its head as a problem with people proposing the new 4-runway estuary airport, so one extra at LHR and LGW instead of the alternative of 4 extra and closing 2 (i.e. LHR) shouldnt be a problem.
In addition to that, we know that aircraft are far cleaner, quieter and more efficient than they were 10 years ago, with the 787, A380, A320neo, 737 Max and probably A350 all being either re-engined or carbon fibre construction (or both). Airlines are also seriously experimenting now with biofuels, I know Virgin and Lufthansa are but two, so that could show fruition in the next decade. This is all in addition to the constant little amendments being mooted such as electric motors on the landing gear to negate the need to the main engines to push aircraft round the taxiways.
Obviosuly I'm not an authority on the issue, but it seems the airline industry is seriously trying to reduce its carbon emissions...whether you think that is for environmental reasons or simply to become more fuel (and cash!) efficient is neither here nor there in terms of the outcome I suppose.
With regards the layout of LHR we all know it needs rationalising, and work is underway in order to progress that, though will of course take time.
With regards Brum, I think they need to concentrate on fully utilising their current runway capacity before making serious arguments for a second. Manchester seems the more obvious location for a hub of sorts, but would again require a large airline tenant. No signs of that being BA, so the alternative would be either Virgin or even one of the Middle Eastern airlines...Emirates already have a large presence there, so why not I guess?! My only suggestion would be that it would only work if LGW (or even STN) was not to be used as a secondary hub i.e. with 2 runways, as to have three 'hubs' (or one, and two smaller ones) would seem overkill. The closest comparison would be Germany (Frankfurt, Munich and what they are trying to do with Berlin), but I think we need to wait for the economy to sort itself out before justifying that!
And Skipness, I know nobody has ever made the transition before, but the requirement has never been as urgent as it is now. EZY have no intention of doing anything other than point to point, so can continue as they are, but I think to rule it out simply on the basis that "well, it didnt work in the 80's" seems like it should be better qualified to me.
In addition to that, we know that aircraft are far cleaner, quieter and more efficient than they were 10 years ago, with the 787, A380, A320neo, 737 Max and probably A350 all being either re-engined or carbon fibre construction (or both). Airlines are also seriously experimenting now with biofuels, I know Virgin and Lufthansa are but two, so that could show fruition in the next decade. This is all in addition to the constant little amendments being mooted such as electric motors on the landing gear to negate the need to the main engines to push aircraft round the taxiways.
Obviosuly I'm not an authority on the issue, but it seems the airline industry is seriously trying to reduce its carbon emissions...whether you think that is for environmental reasons or simply to become more fuel (and cash!) efficient is neither here nor there in terms of the outcome I suppose.
With regards the layout of LHR we all know it needs rationalising, and work is underway in order to progress that, though will of course take time.
With regards Brum, I think they need to concentrate on fully utilising their current runway capacity before making serious arguments for a second. Manchester seems the more obvious location for a hub of sorts, but would again require a large airline tenant. No signs of that being BA, so the alternative would be either Virgin or even one of the Middle Eastern airlines...Emirates already have a large presence there, so why not I guess?! My only suggestion would be that it would only work if LGW (or even STN) was not to be used as a secondary hub i.e. with 2 runways, as to have three 'hubs' (or one, and two smaller ones) would seem overkill. The closest comparison would be Germany (Frankfurt, Munich and what they are trying to do with Berlin), but I think we need to wait for the economy to sort itself out before justifying that!
And Skipness, I know nobody has ever made the transition before, but the requirement has never been as urgent as it is now. EZY have no intention of doing anything other than point to point, so can continue as they are, but I think to rule it out simply on the basis that "well, it didnt work in the 80's" seems like it should be better qualified to me.
A few more points.
Firstly, for all those advocating Birmingham or Manchester as an alternative hub (generally the inhabitants of those two areas), past history has shown that the demand just isn't there. You may feel it suiits you, but there are key differences.
Firstly the premium class high-margin demand from those points just isn't there, in comparison to London. Any mainstream operator will tell you that of the premium demand from the UK, the vast majority is from London. People just don't book F or J from Manchester or Glasgow in anything like the proportions that they do from London, Paris or Frankfurt, which is a sure way of demonstrating they are very secondary business destinations. The relative demand at different places is just a fact of life - even in London, LCY and LHR are good for premium traffic, LGW and STN (especially) have shown that, even where it is provided, there just isn't the demand for it.
Secondly we hear all the stuff about the population of the UK that is closer to those points. Well, not only are they not travelling nearly as much (or in premium - see above), but for INBOUND passengers from overseas coming to the UK, the vast majority (I would guess 80% plus) are headed for London, and inbound pax are probably half or more the total load at Heathrow. You notice this with, say, American's flights from Chicago, 4 daily to London and one to Manchester. To London, US passengers predominate, to Manchester they are very much the minority, it's just Brits from the north.
Firstly, for all those advocating Birmingham or Manchester as an alternative hub (generally the inhabitants of those two areas), past history has shown that the demand just isn't there. You may feel it suiits you, but there are key differences.
Firstly the premium class high-margin demand from those points just isn't there, in comparison to London. Any mainstream operator will tell you that of the premium demand from the UK, the vast majority is from London. People just don't book F or J from Manchester or Glasgow in anything like the proportions that they do from London, Paris or Frankfurt, which is a sure way of demonstrating they are very secondary business destinations. The relative demand at different places is just a fact of life - even in London, LCY and LHR are good for premium traffic, LGW and STN (especially) have shown that, even where it is provided, there just isn't the demand for it.
Secondly we hear all the stuff about the population of the UK that is closer to those points. Well, not only are they not travelling nearly as much (or in premium - see above), but for INBOUND passengers from overseas coming to the UK, the vast majority (I would guess 80% plus) are headed for London, and inbound pax are probably half or more the total load at Heathrow. You notice this with, say, American's flights from Chicago, 4 daily to London and one to Manchester. To London, US passengers predominate, to Manchester they are very much the minority, it's just Brits from the north.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to rule it out simply on the basis that "well, it didnt work in the 80's" seems like it should be better qualified to me.
As to working in the 80s, it didn't work under a decade ago when BA last tried it. Indeed Delta hung on at LGW until very recently but even they quit in April of this year. The only US long haul at LGW is US on LGW-CLT which I understand is mainly LGW-CLT-MCO leisure focussed so is a good fit for the LGW demographic. Indeed BA are adding LGW-LAS this year in addition to LHR.
Some things so work and work well at LGW, the trick is knowing what they are and sticking to them.
You cannot lead a market to where it won't go. I have seen nothing to change my opinion of this, recent long haul has seen Air Hong Kong come and go in six months and Korean and Air China play the waiting game until a suitable LHR slot opens up.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 31st Aug 2012 at 13:47.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Skipness
I'm not suggesting trying to force the market, which I agree is completely impractical (and impossible!) but it just surprises me that, with the unprecedented capacity constraints at LHR as they currently are, that there has not been some sort of 'coalition of the willing' (apologies for the wording!) seriously proposing LGW as an alternative, or even LGW themselves doing more to lobby for it. I will admit, however, that my knowledge of previous experiments is far from exhaustive and I am certainly no expert on the matter!
Could be that they are all holding out and waiting for runway 3 to be agreed I suppose?!
@WHBM
I agree with you, and whilst it would be nice for Manchester or Brum to become a 'secondary hub' in a similar vein to Munich, there just isnt the demand there currently.
Perhaps if the Government were serious about closing this north/south divide or realigning the economy then one of those airports could eventually benefit from the situation, but that would require joined up thinking across Government departments which, when they can't even join up transport policy in one department, seems like wishful thinking to me!
I'm not suggesting trying to force the market, which I agree is completely impractical (and impossible!) but it just surprises me that, with the unprecedented capacity constraints at LHR as they currently are, that there has not been some sort of 'coalition of the willing' (apologies for the wording!) seriously proposing LGW as an alternative, or even LGW themselves doing more to lobby for it. I will admit, however, that my knowledge of previous experiments is far from exhaustive and I am certainly no expert on the matter!
Could be that they are all holding out and waiting for runway 3 to be agreed I suppose?!
@WHBM
I agree with you, and whilst it would be nice for Manchester or Brum to become a 'secondary hub' in a similar vein to Munich, there just isnt the demand there currently.
Perhaps if the Government were serious about closing this north/south divide or realigning the economy then one of those airports could eventually benefit from the situation, but that would require joined up thinking across Government departments which, when they can't even join up transport policy in one department, seems like wishful thinking to me!
Manchester is, alas, on the periphery of Europe, with virtually no significant destinations in an arc from North to South-West. This is just how the geography is, and the demand isn't there.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fifth Freedoms
The open consultation "Draft Aviation Policy Framework, July 2012" asks about extending Fifth Freedom Rights to Gatwick, Stansted and Luton. (pages 23/24 Sections 2.45 - 2.48).
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/consultatio...-framework.pdf
To my mind it begs the question if UK airlines are unprepared to develop hubs anywhere other than LHR, whether reciprocal 5th Freedoms would achieve the same purpose / be a stepping stone towards developing a range of London hubs ???
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/consultatio...-framework.pdf
To my mind it begs the question if UK airlines are unprepared to develop hubs anywhere other than LHR, whether reciprocal 5th Freedoms would achieve the same purpose / be a stepping stone towards developing a range of London hubs ???
Last edited by Windsorian; 31st Aug 2012 at 17:07.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Beaumaris
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paxboy I think Libertine was spot on when stating that MAN and LGW hubs were tried 20years ago. Indeed BA were partners with BHX and Laing construction with a purpose built hub terminal at BHX, with a very flexible design allowing quick xfer from dom to int etc. Despite a considerable investment, and BA put 11 of the first A319's they purchased straight into BHX, and a couple of transatlantic services together with AA, and franchise with Maersk (another 16 or so a/c) it was all pulled in 2007. I think a game changer happened when Walsh took over forget BA other than LHR.
FQTL - a game changer also happened around the late 1990s and early 2000s when Go/Easyjet, Ryanair and bmibaby started selling LCC fares at neighbouring East Midlands and Liverpool, taking away some of the leisure traffic and making life somewhat harder for BA at its less-than-primary hubs...
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Therefore, it would surely make sense that the new onwers of LGW turn it into a genuine rival hub? It can't be any coincidence that a nice big Emirates A380 is on the front cover, along with a BA aircraft in the background?!"
Airport owners/operators do not create hubs! Hubs are created by "legacy" airlines, who operate a base at an airport and have all (almost all) of their routes start or end there. Crucially, they offer transfer services to pax: through ticketing and baggage handling.
At LGW, BA and VS do this on a limited scale, although most of their business is point to point. U2 have a huge base there, but as a "no frills" carrier, do not offer transfer services to pax.
Under these circumstances LGW's business will remain mainly point to point and its lack of connectivity will ensure that it does not become a hub airport. There is little that GIP can do about it.
Quote: "@ Libertine Winno
I think we are missing some key information at present, in particular :-
1. Within the UK's Climate Change obligations, how much additional runway capacity can be built ?
I've read the CCC's International Aviation & Shipping Review and recognise their importance to the economy.
2. If the government allows runway expansion, how will it be allocated around the country in an attempt to re-balance the economy ?
In particular Birmingham airport, as Manchester has recently built a second runway.
3. In the SE where additional runways can be physically built, how these would fit into their competition policy ?
4. The relationship between runways and night flights and in particular the need to operate 24/7 ?
5. The true passenger potential at Heathrow following a complete transformation of the terminals and stands into a more efficient "Toastrack" ?
I'm trying hard to remain open minded, and follow people's coments with interest."
1. Climate change obligations are now at EU level: emissions trading scheme, etc., so there is now a cap. If there is no expansion at LHR, traffic will go to other EU airports like AMS, CDG, FRA which are under the same arrangements.
2. It/they will be allocated to the airport operating at 99+% capacity. Elsewhere would be pointless.
3. It doesn't in UK terms. In global terms, the competition has already been expanded. LHR competes AMS, CDG, FRA, etc., not with MAN, BHX or LGW.
4. There will always be a night curfew at Heathrow. There is not an overwelming business need for full operations throughout the night. With more longhaul capacity there will be a need for more landings between 0500 and 0600, but these would be split between more rwys. Plenty of capacity for 24 hour operations at other airports for charter/holiday flights, etc..
5. The "toastracking" of LHR terminals is investment costing billions, that level of investment would not take place at an airport that will be closed or downsized within the next 30years (because of Fantasy Island). Would therefore expect that Heathrow expansion is very much on the cards. How long it takes for Cameron to grow a pair will determine the timescale.
Quote: "And Skipness, I know nobody has ever made the transition before, but the requirement has never been as urgent as it is now. EZY have no intention of doing anything other than point to point, so can continue as they are, but I think to rule it out simply on the basis that "well, it didnt work in the 80's" seems like it should be better qualified to me."
Forget it, it's not going to happen!
Quote: "The most significant part of why Munich works as a hub whereas Manchester doesn't is that Munich is in the centre of Europe, with many routes south and east of there into Italy, the Balkans, Eastern Europe, etc, as well as north and west of there, for whom Munich is just as convenient as Frankfurt, and for many transits can be more convenient.
Manchester is, alas, on the periphery of Europe, with virtually no significant destinations in an arc from North to South-West. This is just how the geography is, and the demand isn't there."
That is a very good point! It's geography gives MUC a huge advantage as a hub compared to MAN, or for that matter other peripheral (in terms of Europe) "secondary cities" such as BCN or LYS.
Airport owners/operators do not create hubs! Hubs are created by "legacy" airlines, who operate a base at an airport and have all (almost all) of their routes start or end there. Crucially, they offer transfer services to pax: through ticketing and baggage handling.
At LGW, BA and VS do this on a limited scale, although most of their business is point to point. U2 have a huge base there, but as a "no frills" carrier, do not offer transfer services to pax.
Under these circumstances LGW's business will remain mainly point to point and its lack of connectivity will ensure that it does not become a hub airport. There is little that GIP can do about it.
Quote: "@ Libertine Winno
I think we are missing some key information at present, in particular :-
1. Within the UK's Climate Change obligations, how much additional runway capacity can be built ?
I've read the CCC's International Aviation & Shipping Review and recognise their importance to the economy.
2. If the government allows runway expansion, how will it be allocated around the country in an attempt to re-balance the economy ?
In particular Birmingham airport, as Manchester has recently built a second runway.
3. In the SE where additional runways can be physically built, how these would fit into their competition policy ?
4. The relationship between runways and night flights and in particular the need to operate 24/7 ?
5. The true passenger potential at Heathrow following a complete transformation of the terminals and stands into a more efficient "Toastrack" ?
I'm trying hard to remain open minded, and follow people's coments with interest."
1. Climate change obligations are now at EU level: emissions trading scheme, etc., so there is now a cap. If there is no expansion at LHR, traffic will go to other EU airports like AMS, CDG, FRA which are under the same arrangements.
2. It/they will be allocated to the airport operating at 99+% capacity. Elsewhere would be pointless.
3. It doesn't in UK terms. In global terms, the competition has already been expanded. LHR competes AMS, CDG, FRA, etc., not with MAN, BHX or LGW.
4. There will always be a night curfew at Heathrow. There is not an overwelming business need for full operations throughout the night. With more longhaul capacity there will be a need for more landings between 0500 and 0600, but these would be split between more rwys. Plenty of capacity for 24 hour operations at other airports for charter/holiday flights, etc..
5. The "toastracking" of LHR terminals is investment costing billions, that level of investment would not take place at an airport that will be closed or downsized within the next 30years (because of Fantasy Island). Would therefore expect that Heathrow expansion is very much on the cards. How long it takes for Cameron to grow a pair will determine the timescale.
Quote: "And Skipness, I know nobody has ever made the transition before, but the requirement has never been as urgent as it is now. EZY have no intention of doing anything other than point to point, so can continue as they are, but I think to rule it out simply on the basis that "well, it didnt work in the 80's" seems like it should be better qualified to me."
Forget it, it's not going to happen!
Quote: "The most significant part of why Munich works as a hub whereas Manchester doesn't is that Munich is in the centre of Europe, with many routes south and east of there into Italy, the Balkans, Eastern Europe, etc, as well as north and west of there, for whom Munich is just as convenient as Frankfurt, and for many transits can be more convenient.
Manchester is, alas, on the periphery of Europe, with virtually no significant destinations in an arc from North to South-West. This is just how the geography is, and the demand isn't there."
That is a very good point! It's geography gives MUC a huge advantage as a hub compared to MAN, or for that matter other peripheral (in terms of Europe) "secondary cities" such as BCN or LYS.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 1st Sep 2012 at 01:17.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2. If the government allows runway expansion, how will it be allocated around the country in an attempt to re-balance the economy ?
London is the only game in town. The argument is about expanding LHR v. a major overhaul at LGW and then somehow asking the airlines if they would kindly like to move. Or we go down the third fantasy option of an island airport.
The only people who really think that BHX can act as LHR's third runway are a group of ill-informed Midlands politicians who have no concept of how this industry works. To think that an airport which can't even serve its own local market is suddenly going to blossom into a major hub is just daft.
To think that BHX will become "just as easy as Heathrow" when a 38 minute high speed rail link, which may not even happen, is going to drop passengers onto yet another people mover to take them to the terminal, is even more daft. This will still make BHX further from London than all "London" airports, except perhaps for SEN. Yet the new line isn't even planned to start early enough in the day to connect with the first wave of departures, and it is certain to cost far more to use than any other airport "express" service.
So the only people that talk about "re-balancing" have to be very unbalanced in their ability to analyse!
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Little more than 30 years ago the London Docklands was an area of industrial desolation and poverty, so what changed to give us Canary Wharf, LCY and the Olympics? All these projects had difficult births and were heaped with cynicism, but today would anyone think they have been a total failure? And what about LHR which is only 66 years old, so what laid the seeds of its success? Government policy - of course!
I've no doubt some West Londoner's still look down their noses at East London, but without a political (Parliamentary) vision none of this would have come about.
Manchester today has a developing airport MAN with a second runway; after much support it has secured funding for the Northern Hub rail schemes designed to produce a step change in surface connectivity and employment prospects throughout the region. The importance of these investments should not be seen in the short term, but what is possible in the longer term.
Meanwhile Birmingham is keen to re-build itself, to develop BHX and recognises the essential ingredient of HS2 to see this come about. So is it really fair that government should ignore these aspirations, simply because West Londoner's have their heads up their bottoms and a blinkered view of life ??
I've no doubt some West Londoner's still look down their noses at East London, but without a political (Parliamentary) vision none of this would have come about.
Manchester today has a developing airport MAN with a second runway; after much support it has secured funding for the Northern Hub rail schemes designed to produce a step change in surface connectivity and employment prospects throughout the region. The importance of these investments should not be seen in the short term, but what is possible in the longer term.
Meanwhile Birmingham is keen to re-build itself, to develop BHX and recognises the essential ingredient of HS2 to see this come about. So is it really fair that government should ignore these aspirations, simply because West Londoner's have their heads up their bottoms and a blinkered view of life ??
Edwina Currie demonstrating why politicians know absolutely naff all about aviation policy.
She says that Boris' Fantasy Island is needed; and the reason why is that it would be EASIER for "Eastern" flights, as they wouldn't have to travel over London. And transatlantic flights should remain at LHR as they wouldn't have to go over London.
You can't make this up.
She says that Boris' Fantasy Island is needed; and the reason why is that it would be EASIER for "Eastern" flights, as they wouldn't have to travel over London. And transatlantic flights should remain at LHR as they wouldn't have to go over London.
You can't make this up.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Independent Commission on airports
I see the FT are reporting today the government (coalition) will announce an Independent Commission into expansion of the UK's airports.
The link is here, but pay-wall protected: Coalition to set up Heathrow inquiry - FT.com
but free at many English libraries.
The link is here, but pay-wall protected: Coalition to set up Heathrow inquiry - FT.com
but free at many English libraries.