Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Airlines, Airports & Routes
Reload this Page >

Heathrow Plans (Merged)

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

Heathrow Plans (Merged)

Old 19th Jan 2009, 22:06
  #241 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Oil Capital of Central Scotland
Age: 54
Posts: 448
My point entirely.......
Donkey497 is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2009, 05:04
  #242 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Abu Dhabi
Age: 61
Posts: 24

Can you honestly tell me that all the US carriers that moved over to LHR are making money on all there routes. Some of them have already switched to smaller acft (maybe just for the winter) and a few have dropped services.
Is it just a case of operating the services to keep the slots(use them or lose them)and save face on the fact they paid ridiculous amounts of money to get them.
I have not counted them, but there must be well over a 100 flts a day across the pond from LHR.....talk about overkill.
Shyted is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2009, 11:38
  #243 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 40
Posts: 6,168
Uniteds new Denver service has gone seaosnal and Continental exchanged one B767-200 for a B757-200 as the range of the 767 was needed elsewhere. The capacity is identical. NWA have dropped their new route to Seattle as it didn't work.
The market wants to serve LHR over LGW on the atlantic every time. The only reason BA have any long haul at LGW is simply due to capacity constraints at LHR. DL are also moving to LHR lock stock and barrell as soon as they can source the slots.

So we say one of two things.

1) Allow the market to decide in which case LHR wins every time due to higher yields
2) Go back to regulated air travel a la 1970s with politicians and bureaucrats telling the airlines where they must fly to.

No one is preventing other airports being served but LHR is a world airport losing connectivity year on year. So either expand it, or let it wither. In an ideal world we wouldn't be expanding an airport there but we are where we are. Boris Island is a non starter due to obvious wildlife issues, costs of building an island on Western European labour costs and the high yield catchment area being down the M4 corridor on the wrong side of London.
LGW is open for business but business chooses Heathrow for good reasons.

I know West London well. Being concreted over, is an improvement to parts of that borough. We need the capacity now, or 1997 at the earliest. ( *cough* ) Some of the schemes proposed above would gift jobs, routes, trade and business to the French and the Germans and in case you haven't noticed, the economy is getting VERY Darwinistic. Time to wisen up, build the damn thing, create the jobs, put the infrastructure in. I'm no fan of Brown but he got this one spot on.

Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 20th Jan 2009 at 12:24.
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2009, 12:26
  #244 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 337
Im with Skipness on this one.

Why do people think it is an easy thing to do to just relocate Heathrow! Look at the airport area on a map and all those factories, hotels, warehouses etc are all serving the airport. Do we just relocate those as well? What about all the workers? Mass migration to Norfolk/Kent plus construction of a huge airport would cause more protests that the third runway. The Thames island is an impossible dream.

The land to the north of Heathrow is suprisingly empty actually.
felixflyer is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2009, 14:18
  #245 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Abu Dhabi
Age: 61
Posts: 24

I can fully understand the reasons why airlines choose LHR because of the higher yields. I just dont think its the case at the moment. I read stories that BA in particular are loosing lots of 1st and Biz class passengers due to the economic downturn, thus the yields take a battering.
The way the banks are going at the moment, this could get a lot worse.

How will this effect the airlines immediate future.
Shyted is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2009, 01:23
  #246 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 65
Posts: 9,493
It's not just the companies immediately around LHR that support and benefit it. There is something called 'the M4 corridor' and international (and UK) companies have deliberately located themselves all along the M4 because of what lies at Junction 4. NO OTHER REASON.

Even our silly govts (plural!) won't allow EGLL to close as it would instantly devalue some 100 miles of business and residential property. Slough, Reading, Braknell, Newbury, Swindon, even Bristol. The M4 corridor is, effectively, an extension of West London. And then add in the M3 that connects Hampshire and all the way to the South Coast?

Yes, we need R3 + T6 but actually, 20 years ago we should have planned to layout not just R3 but R4 as a new cross runway (off set, of course not in the old place) and T7.

However ... I still maintain that we will not see R3 within the next ten years and that EGLL will continue to be marginalised in the world.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2009, 06:36
  #247 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hither and Thither
Posts: 575
I was reading on UK Airport News the following:

"The FT reports that BAA is claiming that the Commission’s planned break-up would be a ‘serious interference’ with its property rights under the European Convention on Human Rights."
Can't remember the BAA applying this logic to the properties under threat of CPO/seizure in the Sipson area.....

Last edited by Red Four; 23rd Jan 2009 at 10:33. Reason: Needed a P not a B
Red Four is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2009, 07:40
  #248 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Manchester
Posts: 181
building a runway on a heavily populated brown field

Never been there have you? It's NOT heavily populated believe me. Are we saying no one connects through Heathrow from the regions then? Perhaps we should just axe all domestic access to Heathrow?

Actually yes. I was born and lived most of my life there so I don't need to 'believe you', I know more about it than you ever will. I'm not just talking about the actual ground, the whole area is unsuitable for expansion. Some people do connect from the 'regions' to LHR (though number appears to be decreasing), more use the European hubs which do it far better. As for domestic access to LHR, from this part of the UK (North West) it would make very little difference. Smart business uses West Coast Rail line for London, my international customers come in direct to MAN or connect somewhere abroad.
AUTOGLIDE is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2009, 11:26
  #249 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 40
Posts: 6,168
Well I don't live IN Sipson but I know the area well and it's a little island of nice houses sandwiched by an airport and some less than salubrious areas. I'm not unfamiliar with the issues....

Your point on connections works for Manchester but the forced train opton will make connecting passengers use KLM / Lufthansa / Air France and consequently see fewer jobs at Heathrow as the feed bleeds off abroad. It's much quicker to connect over KLM ex MAN / AMS than get the train to Heathrow and connect to BA or another British carrier.

What about GLA / EDI / NCL etc? They'll just connect abroad and STAR and BA will have no feed for their Heathrow long haul services and focus more of their operations abroad. I'm very concerned that people are very keen to play the green card on the day the UK is officially in recession.
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2009, 13:07
  #250 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NE ENGLAND
Posts: 948
Skipness..Are we saying no one connects through Heathrow from the regions then? Perhaps we should just axe all domestic access to Heathrow?
Well this would actually solve a lot of problems, no regionals thus less capacity thus no need for R3. Regional services would grow to support even better access to other Euro hubs, almost without question providing a better transit experience than that from an outdated LHR "cess pit". The result :- BAA would receive a sharp reality check. The country actually doesn't need to depend upon LHR, just the South East! & you are welcome to it. As for the unassailable position you suggest LHR occupies then is this simply because of where all the investment is being placed? IF for example one was to place the same amount of resource into LGW expansion with a second / third runway then perhaps even the South East love affair with LHR would wane. Lets face it, it is quite reasonable to accept that those who depend on LHR for their livelihood will support any form of investment creating job opportunities. This unfortunately in turn provides more voices producing an even louder shout for expansion the argument is self fulfilling. It does not make it right, nor have any bearing on the level of support from the majority of the population.
skyman771 is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2009, 14:17
  #251 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: not a million miles from old BKK
Posts: 494
What is it that is so special about Heathrow?
M4 corridor? Use Farnborough then. It’s closer and certainly has a runway big enough for the largest aircraft – and it is woefully underused despite what the local 'NIMBY's' say.
The European ‘financial gentry' have London City to service them and could, if necessary, use Manston.
Who are the majority of people using Heathrow? Tourists. If foreign Travel Agents could be prevailed upon to design travel itinerary’s that do not all universally start in London but at one of the many other, excellent and relatively under-used airports around the Kingdom then Heathrow’s over-capsity begins to diminish significantly.
As for British people departing the country (for whatever reason) then more regional departure points would be most welcome. I remember in the days when I lived in the West Country I used Exeter, Bristol and Cardiff as a far more convenient departure points for overseas travel. It was a pain in the @rse and expensive having to travel up to Heathrow or Gatwick by train and usually involved the additional cost of hotel accommodation near the airport in order to check-in on time.
As for the 'third runway' there a perfectly good third runway five miles north of Heathrow at Northolt. Never mind that it's an RAF field and VIP flights depart and arrive at it. In this respect who are more important? Thousands of displaced citizens or whichever 'Prat of the Day' happens to be Prime Minister or Pilot Officer Prunes' commanding officer?
Skipness One Echo – from your PPRuNe profile you are neither aircrew nor Heathrow based ground staff so I’m not sure where you’re coming from. However, I get the impression that if you do have a vested interest in Heathrow then your passionate defence of this latest UK government inspired lunacy has more to do with looking after Number One rather than taking a broader view of what is really involved. I’m sure that if your home was in Sibson or nearby then you would be taking a very different line.
No, I’m sorry, but there is absolutely no justification at all in destroying thousands of ordinary people’s environment, community, homes,way of life and livelihoods in order to accomplish this quite ridiculous scheme when there are plenty of perfectly viable alternatives already available.

Last edited by Xeque; 24th Jan 2009 at 15:07.
Xeque is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2009, 14:18
  #252 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: north of heathrow
Age: 52
Posts: 104
Great post skyman771...
13 please is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2009, 15:28
  #253 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 261
Heathrow is not a hub in the traditional sense. An airline like BA has the lowest transfer percentage of all the major airlines in Europe. This is great from a yield point of view (used to be, before this whole mess went screwy). As a reference Amsterdam serves more UK destination than Heathrow does. And out of the total traffic flow there are more UK residents onboard any KLM flight then there are Dutch people. For transfer (especially terminal transfer) Heathrow is a major nightmare.
Otterman is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2009, 18:32
  #254 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 40
Posts: 6,168
It's noticeable that all the dissenting voices are from the "regions" or er....Thailand. Heathrow has already lost a lot of connectivity already, AMS still has the growing connections and the room to expand. A lot of the posters on here seem to have a grudge against the more prosperous South East and an axe to grind. Don't tell me otherwise, I am a Scot and I grew up surrounded by numpties that blamed the English for everything wrong in Scotland. It's pretty familiar.

It's typically Britsh to run down what ought to be a fundamentally important hub airport. An airline ( lets call them BA ) pulled out of my local airport to concentrate on LHR therefore I hate Heathrow and want it to suffer. BAA ? Hate them too? British jobs? Nah they're in the South East and I'm not so I don't care. Hey let's encourage everyone to use AMS / CDG / FRA cos BA doesn't fly from MAN-JFK anymore.

That's the British way, and we won't realise it until we've f***ed it up like we do everything else these days.

M4 corridor? Use Farnborough then.
THAT's the level of debate.
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2009, 19:48
  #255 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 71
Already have 4: 2 westerly 2 easterly
muppet is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2009, 14:06
  #256 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NE ENGLAND
Posts: 948
The lunatics are running the asylum !!!

A Quote in yesterdays Times from no lesser person than our knowledgeable Transport Minister "Geff Hoon" when attempting to defend projections of low emissions in the context of the projected new third runway at LHR
' Mr Hoon told the Commons that the target could be met by introducing biofuels and a new generation of "blended wing" airliners that look like the B2 Stealth Bomber'
Yes really years up to 2030! I think someone has their numbers transposed. Difficult "to see" this one!
skyman771 is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2009, 16:55
  #257 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: madrid
Posts: 86
fresh air

Thanks from chris hunt, greenpeace, after campaign and parliament vote against heathrow expansion
Hey Airplotters,
Thank you to everyone who emailed key Labour MPs and asking them to vote against the third runway yesterday. The response to our email was so huge that we inadvertently overwhelmed a few MP's inboxes – just going to show the strength of feeling about this issue! We were a bit unprepared for the level of enthusiasm we got from you all, so thanks for that.
The opposition to the runway has clearly made its mark on parliament, and when it came to the vote last night, we saw a historic rebellion. Twenty-eight Labour MPs voted against the government's plans to add a third runway to Heathrow – supporting the 'opposition day motion' brought by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. That's a bigger rebellion than even we were expecting – Gordon Brown clearly has a serious political problem on his hands over aviation expansion. It was the biggest Labour rebellion on an opposition motion since they came to power in 1997.
There's a good chunk of coverage about the vote around the web – for a quick couple of bits The Guardian has it along with a list of the Labour MPs who rebelled, or it's also on BBC News. If you want a bit more geeky detail about last night’s vote, revolts.co.uk has an interesting break-down of what happened.
Interestingly, the Labour rebels included three former Labour environment ministers – Michael Meacher, Chris Mullin and Nick Raysnford – who presumably felt they had to vote against the government, given that Heathrow expansion would be a climate change disaster and make it effectively impossible to meet the UK's carbon reduction targets.
MPs with seats local to the airport were also strongly represented in the group of rebels. As a third runway would blight millions of Londoners with more noise and air pollution, and flatten an entire community, it's difficult to see how any MP local to Heathrow could vote with the government and still represent their constituents adequately.
Whatever the government claims, that they have so much difficulty keeping their own MPs in line shows that practically no-one apart from BAA and a few aviation die-hards in the cabinet actually want Heathrow expansion. Last night was a good start – (thanks!) – now we're just really excited about rolling out the Airplot campaign over the coming year. We hope you're excited about being a part of it...
Christian Hunt
Thursday 29th January 2009
avionneta is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2009, 22:09
  #258 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: keighley
Age: 43
Posts: 63
Angel You

Lot are totally not living in the real WORLD ,
1. How do you get to work ? Bus / Car / Train / Aircraft /Ferry /Sapce Shuttle or any other form of transport you intend to be so-called eco - friendly.

London needs this extra Runway less taxi taxi times , less holding patterns which will save fuel .

Yes i do agree it's awfull for a town to be destroyed ,however these people will probably be re-housed in far better houses than they currently occupy.

Also a lot of people live and work Lhr .

I thought Global warming means it,s getting warmer eh not where i reside
kingdee is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2009, 10:05
  #259 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 65
Posts: 9,493
skyman771 is right to point out the inanities that Geoff Hoon spouts but the only reason that he is still around in politics is that he is willing to do and say anything that he is told. From the Iraq war onwards, he has proved a loyal servant to keeping his job.

London needs this extra Runway less taxi taxi times , less holding patterns which will save fuel.
At the risk of repeating myself ... none of those things will happen, because the owners will over sell slots on it - just as they have on the current pair of strips. This will only change if the CAA decide to regulate the airport which, for the last 20 years, they have not because they were told not to by the Tories and then Labour continued the 'light touch' regulation along with all the other monitoring groups.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2009, 11:44
  #260 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Manchester
Posts: 181
Your point on connections works for Manchester but the forced train opton will make connecting passengers use KLM / Lufthansa / Air France and consequently see fewer jobs at Heathrow as the feed bleeds off abroad. It's much quicker to connect over KLM ex MAN / AMS than get the train to Heathrow and connect to BA or another British carrier.

Passengers prefer to use KLM/AFA etc. It is less hassle, and usually also cheaper. I'm not talking about getting the train to LHR, that would be totally stupid when the superior European options are available. I don't think the number of jobs at LHR are much of an issue in the North West considering the number 'lost' at MAN, and previously LPL by a certain LHR based carrier. Some at LHR may be totally obsessed by the place, but it means nothing to us here, so don't make out this runway is for the benefit of the whole UK - we don't need it, our needs are catered for already.
AUTOGLIDE is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.