Aviation White Paper 2011
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviation White Paper 2011
Suprised there has not been more discussion about a few proposals within this discussion doc due later this year...
Whilst the proposal to add the domestic APD to long haul pax using LHR etc thus penalisong pax who dont fly direct seems sensible the proposal to look at BHX as another London airport seems barmy !
Considering Manchester has three terminals two runways and is central for 75% of the country surely that that s/b the airport that s/b expanded ?
Discuss......
Whilst the proposal to add the domestic APD to long haul pax using LHR etc thus penalisong pax who dont fly direct seems sensible the proposal to look at BHX as another London airport seems barmy !
Considering Manchester has three terminals two runways and is central for 75% of the country surely that that s/b the airport that s/b expanded ?
Discuss......
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: manchester
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From reading the news report in the telegraph, it seems the government is going to force Euro airlines to switch multiple frequency routes to use BHX.
Whilst I dont begrudge BHX seeing more service, there are 3 points that cross my mind:
-Can the British Government have jurisdiction as to which private airline can use XXX private airport?
-Is BHX capable of handling all the extra traffic thats thrown its way? I mean, its not exactly the biggest airport in the UK now is it?
-Long haul traffic is not mentioned, but surely European airlines can contest having to move its routes out of London whilst Long haul routes get prefferential treatment?
They seem to be hanging on this HSR link, but seem to forget, that by UK standards, its going to take about 5 years to get all the planning permissions after all the contests, then another 5 years to build. A lot can happen in 10 years. In the meantime, with a half hourly rail service to London, frequent trains northwards to scotland, MAN is primed and ready to handle traffic.
Not only capacity wise, MAN has more lounges (2xEscape, 2xServiceair, BA lounge, V-room, EK lounge, EY lounge) which is what premium pax want.
I think the government actually need to study what they intend messing around with, as it seems they dont have a clue about what they are doing.
Whilst I dont begrudge BHX seeing more service, there are 3 points that cross my mind:
-Can the British Government have jurisdiction as to which private airline can use XXX private airport?
-Is BHX capable of handling all the extra traffic thats thrown its way? I mean, its not exactly the biggest airport in the UK now is it?
-Long haul traffic is not mentioned, but surely European airlines can contest having to move its routes out of London whilst Long haul routes get prefferential treatment?
Considering Manchester has three terminals two runways and is central for 75% of the country surely that that s/b the airport that s/b expanded ?
Not only capacity wise, MAN has more lounges (2xEscape, 2xServiceair, BA lounge, V-room, EK lounge, EY lounge) which is what premium pax want.
I think the government actually need to study what they intend messing around with, as it seems they dont have a clue about what they are doing.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here Here...I hope MAG marketing get stuck into this ASAP, its utter nonsense and a complete non-starter.
Manchester already has infrastructure, demand, capacity AND an existing pax market which on a number of routes is forced albeit in a subtle way via pricing and non-disclosure of "via LHR" etc to use the SE.
The airlines will simply not use it.........
Manchester already has infrastructure, demand, capacity AND an existing pax market which on a number of routes is forced albeit in a subtle way via pricing and non-disclosure of "via LHR" etc to use the SE.
The airlines will simply not use it.........
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember, this is from the same crowd which, before the last election, proposed that people have a set limit of flights which they could take within a year. Legally, I can't see it being allowed.
They stopped all runway development, one of the few useful things the last govt did, so basically the White Paper - which will not involve a review of this decision, isn't going to be worth much, and frankly, I can't see the govt rowing back on this. Nor indeed can I see any of the major players - airport authorities or airlines - participating in the White Paper process and frankly, that's probably the best response.
Sit this govt out until the next one, which will hopefully have a more responsible, interested and farsighted approach to aviation.
They stopped all runway development, one of the few useful things the last govt did, so basically the White Paper - which will not involve a review of this decision, isn't going to be worth much, and frankly, I can't see the govt rowing back on this. Nor indeed can I see any of the major players - airport authorities or airlines - participating in the White Paper process and frankly, that's probably the best response.
Sit this govt out until the next one, which will hopefully have a more responsible, interested and farsighted approach to aviation.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: manchester
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another legal aspect of this is competition. Surely MAN can contest this on the basis that BHX is getting preferential treatment from the Government. All airports across the UK should have an equal right to bid for the transferral of services.
Personally, I cant see anything comming of this, there is too much legal red tape in the way. Whilst it may sound petty, Id hope airlines withdraw services in protest rather than being told where they are allowed and not allowed to serve. After all, serving BHX over London would surely impact loads and yields, otherwise they would be serving BHX as overspill already. People outside of London and the SE rarely make trips outside of said areas for flights anyway, so why would the white paper change this.
Looks like the future of air travel really is CONdem-ed
Personally, I cant see anything comming of this, there is too much legal red tape in the way. Whilst it may sound petty, Id hope airlines withdraw services in protest rather than being told where they are allowed and not allowed to serve. After all, serving BHX over London would surely impact loads and yields, otherwise they would be serving BHX as overspill already. People outside of London and the SE rarely make trips outside of said areas for flights anyway, so why would the white paper change this.
Looks like the future of air travel really is CONdem-ed
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm Manchester central to what ??
Everyone knows that Birmingham is the central city of England(Meriden near the airport is the geographical centre of England).If youre referring central for the scottish borders and lakes then suppose it is.
The reason Birmingham is better placed to take on LHR flts is quite simple.They are closer to take on the South East overflow than Manchester or do I have my geography wrong ?
Everyone knows that Birmingham is the central city of England(Meriden near the airport is the geographical centre of England).If youre referring central for the scottish borders and lakes then suppose it is.
The reason Birmingham is better placed to take on LHR flts is quite simple.They are closer to take on the South East overflow than Manchester or do I have my geography wrong ?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually we should avoid sounding like arrogant Englishmen here, Birmingham may be close to the centre of England but it is not close to the centre of Great Britain so the sensible thing would be to consider Newcastle or Durham which probably are.
However this along with the Birmingham suggestion is not sensible the reality is no airline is going to say to passengers we know you want to fly in to London but we will take you to Birmingham or Manchester which is just X hours away by train.
However this along with the Birmingham suggestion is not sensible the reality is no airline is going to say to passengers we know you want to fly in to London but we will take you to Birmingham or Manchester which is just X hours away by train.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Age: 51
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely those people in the South East, overflow or not, want to fly from a South East airport?
Why would I want the hassle of getting to BHX or MAN when LHR, LGW, STN and LTN are all closer? Why penalise us for flying through LHR, when it's closest to us, and the UK's hub airport?
This lot in power are stark raving mad.
Why would I want the hassle of getting to BHX or MAN when LHR, LGW, STN and LTN are all closer? Why penalise us for flying through LHR, when it's closest to us, and the UK's hub airport?
This lot in power are stark raving mad.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: manchester
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason Birmingham is better placed to take on LHR flts is quite simple.They are closer to take on the South East overflow than Manchester or do I have my geography wrong ?
-Govt has to realise that all airports are private business', and every UK airport should have the right to bid for services.
Unless a back-hander has been done, then Govt cant simply transfer business to BHX.
Put it another way, you wouldnt expect govt to look at a tesco store in say, London, say its too busy and tell customers to go to Asda instead. The legal aspect behind the scenes means that sainsurys could launch a costly legal campain to ask why Govt had the power to give a rival private business custom without a bidding process.
-Its the infrastructure in place that can count towards where an airline decides to go.
MAN is also easily reachable to London on a train, yes, the journey time is an extra 40 mins (on the express trains), which, lets face it, in this day and age is neither here nor there, it has countless lounges, 3 terminals to spread the capacity, most LHR Euro services have more substantial ops at MAN, such as TP/LH/SK/AF/BD/BA etc.
-Location is more central to the UK as a whole than BHX. Yes, BHX may be closer to London, but when travellers originate from the UK as a whole, those from GLA/EDI/ABZ are actually closer to MAN, and then Ireland is 'better' linked to MAN, because, as well as flights, the ports of Holyhead and Liverpool are closer to MAN, linked by motorways and Direct rail services.
So, theres a lot more to the picture than simply 'closer to London.....'
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't see that this is possible or practical.
BA tried transferring routes around the M25 to LGW some years ago but ultimately it failed. LHR works because of the transfer possibilities which it offers. Aviation is a global business not a national one. This thread could quickly descend into LON vs BHX vs MAN. I would suggest that is pointless & irrelevant. If airlines cant fly from LHR with its transfer potential they will go to another hub which does offer those transfer options: i.e FRA/CDG.
Plus European passengers who wish to go to London wish to go to London!
Some direct UK traffic routes may develop from the regions but to try to move European routes away from LHR would be to kill the goose that lays Londons golden egg.
Not doing down the regions: I live & work in them but lets face facts - this is a non starter....
BA tried transferring routes around the M25 to LGW some years ago but ultimately it failed. LHR works because of the transfer possibilities which it offers. Aviation is a global business not a national one. This thread could quickly descend into LON vs BHX vs MAN. I would suggest that is pointless & irrelevant. If airlines cant fly from LHR with its transfer potential they will go to another hub which does offer those transfer options: i.e FRA/CDG.
Plus European passengers who wish to go to London wish to go to London!
Some direct UK traffic routes may develop from the regions but to try to move European routes away from LHR would be to kill the goose that lays Londons golden egg.
Not doing down the regions: I live & work in them but lets face facts - this is a non starter....
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: BOH - UK
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The devil will be in the detail, as with most things. Its well placed between London and the South East and Manchester and the NW so there is definitely potential to do more. The main considertation will be how quick the transfer from Brum into London could be. STN works at 40-50 mins by train into central London, so why not Brum?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But its not a simple as 'its closer to LHR'
Without knowing the context which the White paper is coming, my guess would be that they, the Government, dont want the airports around London to increase their footprints.
Solution - grow the nearest (large international) airport nearer to London.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
some of analysis re "the centre of England" is if you will pardon my English "utter B*****ks".
My supposition was based on the major cities and by defintion the economic activity and population centres that suround Manchester.
With regards to domestic flight connections Manchester is as well served as LHR....
If you are going to comment, at least talk sense rather than make banal stupid comments without foundation !
My supposition was based on the major cities and by defintion the economic activity and population centres that suround Manchester.
With regards to domestic flight connections Manchester is as well served as LHR....
If you are going to comment, at least talk sense rather than make banal stupid comments without foundation !
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: manchester
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
But its not a simple as 'its closer to LHR'
It is though.
But its not a simple as 'its closer to LHR'
It is though.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its really really not. If thats your sole basis of why BHX should be grown over say, MAN/LPL/EMA/NCL, then I sincerly hope to god you are never let anywhere near the helm of an airport operation!
They, the London based Government, are coming from the position of travelling to the NEXT large international airport, thats is Birmingham.
Whatever your beliefs, the NW is twice as far away from London than Birmingham.
Also, what position do you hold at MAN?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There you go, this from Bagso and taken from another thread confirms my guess earlier was right.
the use and expansion of BHX is being touted as an answer to more runways in the SE