GATWICK

[nigel osborne]

BHX5DME.

Interesting on the news today David Cameron apparently "Warming" to a 2nd runway at Gatwick.

Will be very interesting if the airport commission report back that due to high pollution around LHR , Gatwick is their preferred option to recommend for a 2nd runway.

However nothing is that simple.

With Easy Jet saying they would prefer a 2nd runway at LHR and many long haul scheduled airlines seemingly just using Gatwick to lodge until they can get into LHR there are problems.

Low cost airlines probably don't contribute enough to re pay for a 2nd runway at Gatwick and what percentage of flts are low cost out of their 50% perhaps ?

Another article claiming last week that therefore a congestion charge may be needed around Gatwick to pay for a 2nd runway and curb pollution.

The govt may have to try and force the big scheduled airlines to migrate from LHR to Gatwick, but how would that work .. has failed before ?

Star Alliance get moved to to Gatwick but Sky Team you can stay at LHR.. would Star Alliance buy that with probably higher business passenger revenue out of LHR.

Oh if we could only go back to the glory years at LGW in the 70s/80s/90s when it was a much fairer balance between the two.

Be interesting to see how it develops and how many years it takes to get a new runway up and running in the SE !


Nigel

[Skipness One Echo]

Move Skyteam or STAR to Gatwick? Are you serious? Inflict a market distorting competitve disadvantage against Lufthansa, Air France or KLM in favour of BA and you'd be in court and lose very quickly and rightly so.

"Fair" distribution? What does that even mean? This is business, not a nationalised monopoly where Whitehall decides Air Canada should move to Stansted (went to the highest levels of govt did that one!!).

Those days are gone, Air New Zealand and Cathay don't want to move back, no one does. Why would they?

[LNIDA]

Skipness one echo

Not a chance that one off the alliances will be forced to move from LHR, you either move all of them to Boris Island or they stay at LHR with or without a new runway.

LGW needs a second runway for its own growth, even if the likes of Norwegian based its entire planned 787 fleet at LGW it would have little effect on LHR demand.

I just hope that the people who get to decide on the Davis report understand that LGW serves a very different market to LHR, both a prime assets to UK investment, jobs and access to international markets.This should never have been a one or the other debate, for the government the political cost will be the same whether they build at either airport or both, the job boost will clearly by greater by doing just that.

Scrap HS2 build HS3 and green light both LHR & LGW but not a cent of public funds and that includes immediate infrastructure costs on the associated M25 & M23 motorways.

Medium term pollution will decline, the latest generation of petrol engines, stop/start technology,hybrid and all electric cars will see to that.

[AerRyan]

As an outsider on this issue (From Ireland and rather uneducated on the subject), I cannot understand why Both airports cannot be granted a 2nd and 3rd runway respectively? They are both at near full capacity and both need another runway! If Gatwick get a 2nd runway and Heathrow don't get a 3rd I predict that it will have a large effect on the London economy.

[anothertyke]

A couple of points :

1. While I agree that a move of one of the alliances to LGW is most unlikely, I think it is wrong to assume that just because the airline market is configured in a particular way in 2015 it will look the same in 2025 and 2035. In a growth environment there is every reason for the market to change and for fourth and fifth forces to develop further than they have done so far.The case for LGW does not depend on some improbable event like Skyteam upping sticks occurring.

2. Let's suppose that the projects have to be commercial, at a minimum inside the perimeter fence and arguably including the effects on the M25, the Brighton Line etc. If that is the case, it's pretty clear that doing both projects simultaneously will lead to neither being commercially financeable. Therefore the most you could expect will be the go-ahead for one for completion in ten years time with an expectation of the second in twenty years time if UK and world income growth, carbon prices etc pan out as expected.

[kcockayne]

Let's face it. The commercial case is for Heathrow.
If you build a second runway at Gatwick, all you get is a replica of the existing Heathrow - which is too small (hence the need to expand).
What the market wants (to be able to compete with EHAM, LFPG, EDDF etc.), is a much larger EGLL. A decision in favour of EGKK would be a totally political fudge -& leave both 'LL & ' KK being too small to compete with the other airports.
End of story.
The 'LL option is what it should get to meet the requirement. You can expand EGKK, if you like, & it might well be an improvement over existing facilities, but the general requirement needing to be fulfilled is Heathrow !

[Walnut]

I am not so sure that the commercial case is made for LHR, Take New York it has 3/4 a/p's equally spaced around it thus allowing road traffic to get into Manhattan from different sectors, If you expand LHR you exacerbate the road access problem not ease it. Plus the M25 is a key road link between the Channel Ports and the North, If this traffic goes anti clockwise it gets snarled up on the Thames Crossing, always very busy or it goes clockwise past LHR again currently gridlocked in the peak times. Dig it all up and the country could suffer horrendous loses. Air traffic is important but road freight is more important to the UK economy.
So yes an improvement at LGW would make more strategic sense as it would allow a different point of entry into London and would be a much shorter route for air freight seeking to use the Channel tunnel, both in or out

[kcockayne]

walnut

your points are well made, & I have no issue with them.
What I meant to convey was that the REAL requirement is for ONE large London airport (perhaps replacing both 'KK & 'LL). This would have been the Thames Estuary airport, or something similar. Apparently, that has been ruled out & the choice for expansion lies between 'LL & 'KK.
In these circumstances, the only "solution" would be Heathrow; since choosing Gatwick for expansion would not result in the actual required solution, which is ONE much larger ( than 'LL's present size) London airport to compete with the continental airports for "hub & spoke" & connecting traffic.

[Charley B]

Best idea is one extra runway at LGW and LHR...keeps everyone happy

[055166k]

No Hurry!

If Scotland dump the taxes the lowland airports could become hub and spoke gateways for long haul......fare savings potential is enormous....job creation and economic growth significant. Certainly give Paris [4 runways and another 3 at Orly], Amsterdam [5 runways], Brussels [3 runways] some competition.
Common sense dictates that Heathrow is a tactical non-starter.....do you really put all your capacity in one airport.....one incident could close down the majority of UK airport capacity in an instant. Logic dictates that Gatwick is the choice by a long long way.
Unfortunately politics are involved......if you study the Heathrow situation in detail it is evident that the airport runs 10-15% below capacity as a result of operating restrictions [not the "curfew"....the dedicated runway ].
So no immediate hurry......a simple signature on a piece of paper would increase Heathrow capacity overnight.
Is there another reason for capping Heathrow capacity? I really don't know, but if I were writing a novel I might consider that the high value of Heathrow slots would be eroded if capacity increased, and there would be extra competition if extra slots became available.

[nigel osborne]

Skipness

you miss read my post ,as I say Sky Team or the other alliances simply wouldn't buy it.

However we are talking politicians here who know nothing about yield, hubs or anything else.So wouldn't put it past the Govt to try it.

They tried to force SAS Air Canada and others to transfer to LGW many years ago and got two fingers from the airlines.

Nigel

[nigel osborne]

Walnut,

Some good points here.

However not discussed here is how Gatwick would pay for a 2nd runway certainly the low cost airlines wouldn't.

At least at LHR with fatr more full fare airlines and business/first class passengers the revenues are much higher.

Financially it has to be LHR, thats where business passengers want to fly from.

However with little political appetite to expand LHR I can see them going for LGW in the long term .

Nigel

[Skipness One Echo]

Again, for the umpteenth time, some people are conflating runway capacity with hub capacity.
1) A HUB is a single large airport with usually one dominant carrier with a large number of intercontinental destinations supported by feed from other domestic and international airports. Think LHR / CDG (less so ORY) / AMS / JFK (no single dominant operator) / EWR / DXB / DOH / AUH / ZRH / FRA / MUC / BRU etc. THis is crucial in driving business support and inward investment.

2) Runway capacity is more concrete to allow people to fly

If there's no intersection between 1 and 2 then your hub is still massively constrained. To be clear, the Scottish Lowland airports are not competing for hub capacity. To be clearer, and this is quite crucial.

GATWICK AIRPORT is not a HUB and has failed every time it has tried and has also lost every legacy long haul airline ever with the exception of the BA/VS Beach Fleet.

If you give LGW a new runway the locos can't pay for and business won't use, what are you actually doing?

[anothertyke]

Well, if they can't pay for it, the funders will be unable to raise the money and even if planning permission is given, the project will not happen. To a greater extent at LGW than at LHR there will be market testing and that is a virtue of the system, accepting that it is a regulated market.

I think yours is not the only view Skippy. While many would accept the prime need is for hub capacity, they would also say that there is a need to consider what to do if that cannot be delivered at an acceptable social and economic price. Then, what you are doing is (a) increasing the size,comfort and quality of the waiting room as you have put it innumerable times, (b) increasing the capacity of the London and SE system for dealing with point to point traffic which IF the forecasts are correct will be desperately needed by the time the capacity is on line

I read you to be saying that LGW should not proceed under any circumstances. I'm surprised.

[True Blue]

Lets bring some economics and capitalism to this debate. We have been told for a century now that Lhr is full. Yet it keeps on being able to find slots and room for more pax and new services. I believe that although runway capacity may be near 100% at Lhr, only about 70-80% of seats are sold on services. I could be wrong with my percentages but I am certain that aircraft do not operate through Lhr at anywhere near 100% load factor. We are also told that there is a waiting list of 30+ airlines waiting to get into Lhr, some waiting for years. I would like to see that list myself to see how true that is! Because if I was running an airline into London, one of the greatest markets on earth, I think I would give Lgw a try rather than do nothing for years in the hope of getting a slot at Lhr. At the end of the day, if the only expansion is at Lgw and the demand keeps increasing, the airlines will go there as there will be no-where else to go. And no, they will not up sticks and go the Paris etc, because the carrot which is London is just too big for them to resist.


There is a lot of posturing going on here and self interest. For many, including Easyjet, they do not want Lgw expanded out of self-interest, not the good of the nation. People may have to deal with their obsession with Lhr and learn to think outside the box. Markets change, so do travel patterns and airlines.

[Skipness One Echo]

I read you to be saying that LGW should not proceed under any circumstances. I'm surprised.

No I'm just angry that Gatwick Obviously are, in my view, peddling a myth that another runway at Gatters helps hub connectivity. Two airports working side by side and all that jazz. The market reality is far from that with no based airline offering meaningful hub capacity, not even BA who predicate their LGW model on point to point leisure.

Adam Thomson didn't want BCAL to be at LGW, he was at LGW only because he was frozen out of LHR to protect BA. Same with BUA, Laker and for the first six years, Virgin Atlantic. By all means expand LGW, I think there's a good case for that. However on one point Boris Johnson is correct, London needs one hub airport to be supported and expanded if the UK is to pay it's bills in the global economy. So in my view as well as his, support your hub. He wants to close LHR, I want to expand it, however in no reasonable scenario, and I understand the report will refelct this, will adding a runway at LGW and not LHR result in any more long haul flights to connect us into global markets.

Because if I was running an airline into London, one of the greatest markets on earth, I think I would give Lgw a try rather than do nothing for years in the hope of getting a slot at Lhr

In long haul, if you offer LGW and someone else offers LHR, you'll only mop up low yield leisure with front end high yield choosing LHR. BA found this out when they ran a dual hub, African services moved from LHR to LGW saw their yield stay at LHR with the competition. Korean Air found this recently as did Air China. Garuda are currently flying fresh air between LGW and Jakarta and Vietnam have just gotten out of LGW for LHR.

and learn to think outside the box. Markets change, so do travel patterns and airlines.

In this case, it has been the same as always. Think ouotside the box all you like, EOS did, Silverjet did, Maxjet tried, Hong Kong Air attempted to, Norwegian are having a go, but up against critical mass, you more often than not lose badly. btw "out of the box"? Not when you're flying multi million $ assets about, look at the history and the numbers. A much better guide than blue sky thinking in most cases.

We have been told for a century now that Lhr is full.

Odd given it dates from 1947

And no, they will not up sticks and go the Paris etc, because the carrot which is London is just too big for them to resist.

Key point is most are ALLIANCE members so whereas continuing to serve London one stop via STAR ALLIANCE FRA/ZRH/MUC or SKYTEAM CDG/AMS into LHR might make some money, a direct service to London-Gatwick probably will not. This is how LHR competes with continental hubs rather than LGW.

[PAXboy]

For the regular visitor - don't bother reading as I'm repeating information but hope to concentrate it into (more or less) one place to get the point focused.

True Blue

We have been told for a century now that Lhr is full. Yet it keeps on being able to find slots and room for more pax and new services.

1. LHR booted out lots of UK regional flights and, instead of a 146 or (now) E170/190 types, lands B777, A380 etc. Not many turbo-props at LHR now!
2. Carriers themselves also willingly did this, BA bought up small regional carriers just to get their slots and booted the flights elsewhere, or simply canned them.
3. LHR booted out all the Exec Jets so that they could land pubic pax aircraft. One pair of slots for a 738 and one for a 744 and one for 388, as against three Gulfstream movements.
4. LCY opened in 1987/88 and took a lot of the small a/c out of LHR and LHR was DELIGHTED to lose them.
5. A new ATC system was introduced to help stack more aircraft - as well as the problem of LCY flightpaths in the LTMA.
6. ATC staff became adept at using the increasing information about wake vortex to schedule arrivals/departures in the best sequence. Also, of course, the principle of alternating departing a/c to turn left and right to increase spacing. This might mean that an a/c leaves slightly later than it's true departure slot time but the overall flow rate is increased. Everyone involved understands this.
7. Aircraft technology improved so that they could travel closer to the preceeding aircraft.
8. LTN + STN + LGW + regionals took package and routine holiday traffic out of LHR, leaving more slots.
9. They started stacking i/c aircraft to the maximum

Lets bring some economics and capitalism to this debate.

Yes lets.

1. Carriers are prepared to up the price to allow for numerous holding circuits and long taxy waits on arrival (for a stand) and on departure (for a slot).
2. Carriers pay way over the odds to buy slots at LHR.
3. Carriers pay way over the odds for check-in desk space and ALL the facilities at LHR.
4. Pax are prepared to pay for 1 + 2 + 3.
5. Carriers are so keen to get out of the waiting room (LGW) that they do 1 + 2 + 3 and schedule their flights at a time suitable to LHR, rather than their own base.

THAT is the economics and capitalism of EGLL. I'm sure that Skipness and others will give more reasons. But the crux is that, despite my 9 points above LHR is full. If the govt commanded LHR to cut all inbound delays and not to stack a/c to save fuel exhaust over London? The airport would instantly not be able to operate or be profitable. I suggest that, on opening a 3rd runway, and clearing the outbound taxy waits and inbound stacks - LHR would, almost immediately, be full again. They would have to start stacking again because govts did not look to the nation's well being and build (either) a new 4 runway hub 25 years ago or allow 4 runways at LHR

Have you enjoyed the inbound waits and outbound taxy at JFK? Same problem.

For many, including Easyjet, they do not want Lgw expanded out of self-interest, not the good of the nation.

Of course! But they don't want LGW because the Pax want LHR. It is the govt that have to look to the good of the nation. Unfortunately, for the last 30 years all govts have failed in their policy about airlines and airports. The Tories say that they don't want to meddle in the commercial operations and then do exactly that. (Do some reading about the cost of parking and shopping at LHR and how that came about) (Also read about the 'management' of the UK aero industry from 1945) (Also about the good fortunes of British Caledonian) (Etcetera) ALL of those were politics and nothing to do with 'economics and capitalism'.

People may have to deal with their obsession with Lhr and learn to think outside the box. Markets change, so do travel patterns and airlines.

The govts of the last 30 years have cut off all the other options and thus trained the public about LHR/LGW and, consequently, the regional fields have opened up their service. No one has come up with a plan to reverse 30 years of economics and capitalism AND

• politics - the lot of them
• 1970s fuel price shocks
• the development of widebody a/c
• Global expansion
• major UK recessions of the early 1980s, the early 1990s
• the crash of 2008
• Time to put the kettle on ...

[True Blue]

Paxboy

I agree with most of what you and S1E say.

But Lhr has taken the 9 steps you give above, where do they go from here? I believe that even if Lhr gets the green light, it could be 15 years before that new runway is operating, am I right? Let us assume that demand keeps on rising, even with some shocks. Those carriers at Lhr need to and want to add services. Now they have decisions to make. At some point the three costs you state will become uneconomic, even at Lhr. It might take them a while to figure that out, due to ego, but it will happen. So what do they do then?
1. Pay those ever increasing costs at Lhr, even as their services are made loss making/much reduced profit because of the costs
2. Forget about the rising demand and leave to others, who may be using Lgw already
3. Start at Lgw.

I know where I would place my bet.

It is slightly different for Ba, they can move services to Lgw to free up slots at Lhr, but foreign based carriers have no such option. I also believe that the change of owners has made a massive difference at Lgw. BAA had no interest at all in promoting Lgw, GIP are a different animal.

Re the airlines you mention who tried Lgw and quickly moved to Lhr. I would question how they could decide on the future of a route after one season. Air China has stated they could fill 4 flights a day ex London if they could get the slots. If that claim is true, is it not odd they could not make one flight a day ex Lgw work? How long did Korean try? But look at Turkish, fairly recent to Lgw and I believe would like to have five services a day next year. Icelandair, going up to 8 a week later this year I believe. I look at some of these carriers who moved quickly to Lhr and I ask myself, did they really want their Lgw service to succeed at all?

At the end of the day, it is only when we look back in maybe 10/15 years time that we will see who was right. In the meantime, a great debate and a lot to play for for both airports and the country.

[racedo]

Another article claiming last week that therefore a congestion charge may be needed around Gatwick to pay for a 2nd runway and curb pollution.

No chance as A23 underneath terminal and M23 are key road links, tell people who trade with the massive Manor Royal which has more jobs that Gatwick that they now have to pay to get to work or deal with businesses.

[kcockayne]

Several good points made by people on both sides of the argument about 'LL & 'KK.
However, the FACT remains that the customer demand & strategic solution, is for ONE very much larger Hub & an uninterrupted amount & frequency of flights from it.
IF you build a 2nd. Runway at 'KK that's fine for 'KK. But it only gives you another airport the same size as the present 'LL. It does NOT provide what is needed ie the very much larger ONE main international gateway.To do that would require 2 or 3 extra runways at 'KK & a very much larger terminal.
Without the Thames Estuary development, the expansion should , logically, take place at Heathrow.
Two similarly sized airports (at 'LL & 'KK) are not what will meet the requirement. Both will be too small compared to what is needed.