Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

HEATHROW

Old 18th Sep 2016, 12:49
  #4521 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 542
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
They are not concerned about any disruption for passengers, staff, supplier's or local residents. It is of course a hub airport where passengers just transit from one flight to another not leaving the airport.
Trinity 09L is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2016, 15:23
  #4522 (permalink)  
c52
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,262
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is HAL not regulated in such a way that their maximum permitted profit is proportional to their investment? That being why BAA built a "gold-plated" T5, but what looks and feels like a prefab at EDI.

What would the new runway cost if HAL's profits were damaged by spending unnecessary capital, like any other company?
c52 is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2016, 15:49
  #4523 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Actually the airports commision came the conclusion that it was the hub business model that made Heathrow the winner as Gatwick could not come close to delivering the economic benefits. That was the fundamental heart of the decision, to suggest the debate was a simple matter of additional runway capacity is wilfully wrong.

The Manchester Crowd really do love to be selective in when hub and spoke is a good thing offering connections i.e MAN and flybe feeding TCX, the ME3, VS building a hub. This is a good hub because it's their local hub. A bad hub is one in another part of the country which may impact the rate of growth at MAN.
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2016, 16:02
  #4524 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Edinburgh is not owned by BAA. It is owned by GIP, the owners of Gatwick.
Ametyst1 is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2016, 16:07
  #4525 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I would say that Manchester is a spoke rather than a hub! While it chases the likes of Ryanair, easyJet, Jet2 et al it will never became alternative to Heathrow.

The airport is already almost full to capacity at peak times so how would they expect to "accommodate" any overflow from Heathrow?

However, the truth is that any "overflow" would be directed to Dublin or Madrid by IAG and to Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Paris by the other alliances.
Ametyst1 is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2016, 16:40
  #4526 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo
Actually the airports commision came the conclusion that it was the hub business model that made Heathrow the winner as Gatwick could not come close to delivering the economic benefits. That was the fundamental heart of the decision, to suggest the debate was a simple matter of additional runway capacity is wilfully wrong.
Ahhhh! So it was really all about competing busines models rather than runway capacity?!!

i must have missed that memo...
Dobbo_Dobbo is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2016, 16:47
  #4527 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,789
Received 196 Likes on 90 Posts
Originally Posted by Ametyst1
Edinburgh is not owned by BAA. It is owned by GIP, the owners of Gatwick.
EDI's current terminal was built soon after the start of its 40-year period under BAA ownership.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2016, 17:58
  #4528 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Actually the airports commision came the conclusion that it was the hub business model that made Heathrow the winner as Gatwick could not come close to delivering the economic benefits.
But Heathrow cannot come close to matching Gatwick's cost of project-delivery. Both sides of the ledger must be carefully considered.

The Manchester Crowd really do love to be selective
It is yourself who keeps conflating MAN's role with SE capacity debate. There is no logical reason for MAN to be central to this discussion.

MAN and flybe feeding TCX, the ME3, VS building a hub. This is a good hub because it's their local hub.
Please refer to my earlier comments about MAN being suitable to serve only as a niche-hub due to its geographical location on the western periphery of Europe and the absence of a major based hub-carrier. However, any transfer traffic which can be attracted within these limitations is a net positive ... icing on the cake, if you like. This would not apply if MAG needed to spend GBP2Bn to attract GBP100M of new business. The maths has to work. No exceptions.

A bad hub is one in another part of the country which may impact the rate of growth at MAN.
A bad hub is one at which the cost of attracting incremental business vastly outweighs the financial benefits of the new business so attracted. A good hub is one at which transfer traffic can be handled on a complementary basis with either no or modest additional investment required for supplementary facilities. In all cases, the value of new trade attracted must exceed that investment cost by a worthwhile profit margin.

I would say that Manchester is a spoke rather than a hub! While it chases the likes of Ryanair, easyJet, Jet2 et al it will never became alternative to Heathrow.
Yes, MAN is predominantly a P2P airport with scope for a modest niche-hub role at the margins (linking FlyBe destinations to points beyond MAN, for example). MAN is not a solution for passenger demand inherent to the SE market; it cannot serve as an alternative to LHR and has no pretensions of doing so. MAN's role is to serve as principal gateway airport for the 22 million people located within its own catchment area, and overseas customers visiting this hinterland. That role - accounting for some 25 million pax this year - is MAN's raison d'etre and growing this constitutes a suitably significant mission to be getting on with.

The airport is already almost full to capacity at peak times so how would they expect to "accommodate" any overflow from Heathrow?
Simple. They won't! And they have no aspiration to do so. Absolutely unrealistic. MAN's only relevance to this debate is that it is the optimal solution for North of England traffic, including that which was previously obliged to route involuntarily via LHR and other SE airports.

Finally, Skip / All ... May I suggest that it may be appreciated by readers of this SE airports capacity discussion if you stop pitching questions about Manchester Airport on this Heathrow thread. They don't belong here, and it is you, not those you refer to as the "Manchester Crowd" who is constantly manoeuvring to conflate the topics.

BTW, you'll be pleased to note that since our exchanges a couple of days back I've been inundated with pop-up ads for Subway. There's some darned clever technology monitoring the net! :-)
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2016, 18:05
  #4529 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That was a different BAA 40 years ago. GIP has owned Edinburgh long enough now to improve or replace the present terminal.
Ametyst1 is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2016, 18:15
  #4530 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Shed, I agree completely with you over Manchester's place in the UK Aviation scene. My comments were aimed at some of the other contributors within the M60 who do see Manchester as the answer.

At the end of the day, Heathrow is the only show in town with regards to increasing runway capacity in the South East. Regardless of cost, the environment, infrastructure, nimby's etx, the decision will be based on politics rather than other concerns.

To expand Heathrow is to send a message to the world that Britain is open for business after Brexit. It ties in with the political mantra of the day. Large infrastructure projects in the UK will send a powerful message.
Ametyst1 is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2016, 18:25
  #4531 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,789
Received 196 Likes on 90 Posts
Originally Posted by Ametyst1
GIP has owned Edinburgh long enough now to improve or replace the present terminal.
GIP have owned EDI for just over 4 years.

Whether they have succeeded in improving the terminal during that time is a moot point, and I think we'd have noticed if they'd pulled it down.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2016, 18:35
  #4532 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Greater Aldergrove
Age: 52
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
To expand Heathrow is to send a message to the world that Britain is open for business after Brexit. It ties in with the political mantra of the day. Large infrastructure projects in the UK will send a powerful message.
Totally agree.
NWSRG is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2016, 18:48
  #4533 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
To expand Heathrow is to send a message to the world that Britain is open for business after Brexit.
To do so at the cost proposed is to send a message to the world that we've lost our marbles and our politicians can't cope with primary-school arithmetic.

Large infrastructure projects in the UK will send a powerful message.
Where the benefits exceed the cost of provision by a prudent margin, yes. Otherwise our 'powerful message' will be met with utter bemusement.
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2016, 19:33
  #4534 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ahhhh! So it was really all about competing busines models rather than runway capacity?!!
i must have missed that memo...
Er.... yeah you did.
The question was around runway capacity and where to build it.
The answer was LHR and the reason a much greater ROI building on existing hub capacity without splitting between LHR/LGW. That was why LHR was recommended, the LGW ROI was way lower. The two business models are not the same, the LHR one got the nod as the commission did not see how LGW could ever become a competitive or complimentary hub (!)
But Heathrow cannot come close to matching Gatwick's cost of project-delivery. Both sides of the ledger must be carefully considered.
And GIP pitched a lower than credible bid let's be honest, the gatwickobviously figures are a joke. The current Gatwick rail links are on their knees *today*
There is no logical reason for MAN to be central to this discussion.
Tell bagso next time he bangs his daily anti LHR post on the MAN thread then
Finally, Skip / All ... May I suggest that it may be appreciated by readers of this SE airports capacity discussion if you stop pitching questions about Manchester Airport on this Heathrow thread. They don't belong here, and it is you, not those you refer to as the "Manchester Crowd" who is constantly manoeuvring to conflate the topics.
It's the central core of your argument Shed, you're the only one who can't see it, honestly. Continue to artificially constrain LHR to allow MAN and the regions to prosper.
To do so at the cost proposed is to send a message to the world that we've lost our marbles and our politicians can't cope with primary-school arithmetic.
Cost calculations at this level are not arithmetic. The likes of multi decade amoritisation of debt is hardly primary school stuff and both sides are bang on throwing around half baked stats. The stuff coming out of GIP shoes their afraid of making only a reasonable mutiple of their capital invetsment instead of a huge markup they'd get if LGW grows at the expense of LHR. Ironically both used to be public enterprises.

Oh and enjoy the sandwich, just avoid the £2000 one....
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2016, 19:41
  #4535 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo
Er.... yeah you did.
The question was around runway capacity and where to build it.
The answer was LHR and the reason a much greater ROI building on existing hub capacity without splitting between LHR/LGW. That was why LHR was recommended, the LGW ROI was way lower. The two business models are not the same, the LHR one got the nod as the commission did not see how LGW could ever become a competitive or complimentary hub (!)
Perhaps you can explain to me how (in an economy that is not centrally planned) an airport, as opposed to an airline, can have a "hub" business model.
Dobbo_Dobbo is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2016, 20:01
  #4536 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Continue to artificially constrain LHR to allow MAN and the regions to prosper.
Oh how DARE the regions want to prosper. Don't those silly people know that the only airport that has to expand and prosper is LHR and those in the regions should tug their forelocks when they get the mighty generous £5 or £6 per person per year spent on infrastrucure. That the regions are expanding by attracting passengers not using LHR seems totally irrelevant
Ringwayman is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2016, 20:35
  #4537 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's the central core of your argument Shed, you're the only one who can't see it, honestly. Continue to artificially constrain LHR to allow MAN and the regions to prosper.
The regions have been (and continue to be) artificially constrained in favour of LHR and its incumbents. If UK government inaction and delay over LHR leads to greater focus from airlines on serving the UK outside SE England that is a good thing.
dave59 is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2016, 20:54
  #4538 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Shed, I understand your concern on costs but the decision will be political. If everything any government is cost driven then we wouldn't have NHS managers earning £240,000 per year in a non-job.

The decision will be political. Which British government has ever been financially competent to deliver a cost effective.

Exhibit 1, m'lord Hinckley Point
Ametyst1 is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2016, 20:59
  #4539 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
dave59, I don't see that Heathrow artificially constrains the reasons anymore than Amsterdam, Frankfurt or Paris do.

Where and how has Heathrow stifled growth in the regions?
Ametyst1 is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2016, 20:59
  #4540 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ballymena
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If the decision goes to Lhr, what reasonable legal challenges can we expect? What would be their likely impact?
True Blue is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.