Make connecting customers connect elsewhere - A solution for LHR capacity?

[umberto65]

Nice ideas...

However, from a purely business perspective the only thing that matters here is the gravitational pull of LHR.

Hub Airports must be monopolistic in order to succeed, and that usually happens because:

- Customers decide so: They all want to fly to LHR
- Airlines decide so: LH hubs at FRA (and not Berlin as the German Government wanted them to do so sometime ago')
- Government decides so: The MXP example

So as long as customers want to fly to LHR - and Airlines want to meet that demand - there is no chance of a P2P vs Connecting split. It wouldn't make a iota of business sense.

[JSCL]

I actually disagree with the 'LHR is more expensive' argument. I've flown with BA via LHR and via LGW on many an occasion - every time, LGW was more expensive. BAA being the current owner/operator of STN (for how long is anyones guess) - are they really going to support such transition? No. They want LHR expansion. The idea is flawed in every way.

Maybe it's time for Scotland to find itself an airline after Globespans unfortunate collapse (which of course wasn't their own doing). There are potential UK-based opportunities, but not in London.

[The SSK]

BA could do what you propose, any time that it likes. I would bet my life savings that it has been thoroughly studied and researched within BA, probably more than once. And rejected.

Not many years ago BA came very close indeed to buying KLM, and their strategy was exactly as you suggest - shift the connecting traffic to Schiphol and keep the O&D at LHR.

As mentioned by Skipness One Echo there is an echo of that strategy in the Iberia tie-up, Madrid will act at least possibly as a safety-valve for Heathrow.

[FQTLSteve]

Hub move

Very inetresting points being made, I have to say BA would be mad to move LHR-JFK flights, and as someone has pointed out you'd need a large connecting route structure....wouldn't be enough pax connecting onward for them.

Someone mentioned the BA Eurohub at BHX. This was different, it did remove some connecting pax from BA at LHR. But mainly UK to Continental city traffic, although BA did fly to JFK and AA to ORD. At the time I was a frequent weekly user of Eurohub. It had an excellent Terraces Lounge, stupidly easy connection from gate to gate, and not being slot restrained I was on many flights where we were held for a few minutes to allow connecting passengers to board (i.e BHX-NCL held for MXP/BCN-NCL via BHX). It worked well and must have eased some capacity on BA's short haul routes. It also permitted more services from BHX than may have been operated. Today in BHX (and MAN) LH/AF/KL/SK/LX etc take large pax feed to their hubs, which no longer is provided by BA.

But what happened, it's all history now.......BA walked away from a purpose built hub terminal. BTW I'm not suggesting that this would help long haul traffic if it was still operating, so despite the easing of short haul connecting travel from UK regions on LHR, BA still didn't want it.

[rn750]

The extension of the point is that the UK's National Carrier should serve more than 1 UK city..
If BA had scheduled long and short haul flights from the regions Birmingham, Leeds, Edinburgh, Manchester. this would free up slots at Heathrow..
Thus resolving the capacity issue..

Easy..

Adie

[PAXboy]

American Airlines started a 767 service from STN to NYC (can't recall which airport but probably JFK) Is that service still running? No.

The UK govt have signalled failed to create a workable alternative to LHR and now it cannot be changed. The 3rd might happen but no grat move. Afterall, for the last 60 years, every aspect of commercial development in the South East of the UK has had LHR as it's touchstone. Whether it is the houseing of North and West London or the 'M4 Corridor' which ONLY exists because of EGLL. No one is going to attempt to fiddle with that market.

[Skipness One Echo]

The extension of the point is that the UK's National Carrier should serve more than 1 UK city..
If BA had scheduled long and short haul flights from the regions Birmingham, Leeds, Edinburgh, Manchester. this would free up slots at Heathrow..
Thus resolving the capacity issue..

Easy..

Adie

Where to start with this nonsense? They clearly serve more than one city, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester, Heathrow, Gatwick and Jersey (non UK but you get the idea), are all BA mainline destinations. That's seven which is more than one where I went to school. In fact you can throw Belfast into the mix once BMI is integrated, so that takes it to eight, and mad it sounds, there are mutterings of Leeds-Bradford!

BA operated hubs from MAN and BHX for decades which due to their cost base lost money for just as long in an era of less competition. In todays much more competitve environment, they have no chance as the public chooses to fly with the locos or a foreign carrier who has a hub at the destination.

The extension of the point is that the UK's National Carrier

They're a PLC not a branch of the state, you want BA to lose money flying routes for social reasons, subsidise them. Oh wait, we can't, we're bust.

Not that easy then.

[Suzeman]

Passengers from MAN and 'oop North are freeing up LHR capacity by using other hubs in Europe, Middle East and N America.

Never say we doing nothing to help

Suzeman

[Fairdealfrank]

We've been round this many times:

(1) BA no longer operate longhaul from the regions because they can't make money. It's too late to go back, unless they want a fight with EK and KL.

(2) The dual hub was tried with LHR/LGW for years when airlines could be told where to be based. All the LGW-based carriers failed except VS who were able to move accross to LHR. So why would STN work where LGW failed? We are now in a deregulated open skies environment and airlines and airports are commercial outfits, not government departments.

(3) Are we seriously suggesting that BA should have 4 bases and 2 hubs: LHR, LGW, LCY and STN?

(4) Dual hubs at JFK/EWR and DME/SVO work because of the availability of domestic connections because both are in huge countries. Are there any others? In both cases no single airline is present at both hubs as would be the case for BA at LHR/STN.

(5) This has all the wishful thinking of the Silver Island estuary airport. No one has come up with a workable alternative to LHR expansion because there isn't one. Political reality will need to set in quickly, and as mentioned in a previous post on another thread, Justine and Teresa are best off being sent to cut the grass.

[The SSK]

The flaw in the argument was in the first word of the title: Make

Passengers don't take kindly to being 'made' to use an airport that they would not otherwise choose to use. The world is littered with failed artificial hubs.

[Tableview]

I congratulate sidest for having put up a valiant fight in the face of informed opposition, stated facts, past history, and conventional wisdom.

Might I suggest a career in politics?

[puntopower]

We know there is a lot of O/D traffic in the UK compared to the norm, particularly London. Then we come to the hub concept. Does it matter where a hub is? Dubai certainly isn't the holiday and business destination of the world.

The UK mentality seems to be fly direct, however, this is not a global mentality and LHR operates on a global stage. Figures from 2007, not exactly up to date, but representative, show O/D at LHR was 65% of pax, compared to 46% at FRA, 58% at AMS and 68% at CDG. In terms of actual numbers, LHR was only 5m pax below FRA in relation to connecting pax. In my view, part of this is to do with the size of the UK in comparison to Germany for example. Journey times to LHR are much shorter for a larger percentage of the country, whereas Germany, which is much larger than the UK, it is easier and more able to connect from BER-FRA-Long Haul for example.

If the connections are convenient, the ground service is good and most importantly the flights are well priced - surely it doesn't matter?

This is a rational arguement. A field in the middle of nowhere is surely acceptable for a transit pax as long as flight A connects to flight B and they arrive in C. The problem is that in order to maintain a service, you have to ensure that there is enough of a balance of O/D and connecting pax to ensure the flight is economically viable. If you are not flying to an area with an active local population, it becomes unviable. Passengers transit through LHR because of the level of choice in destinations served. Curiously, I am not sure why they choose it out of choice over other more efficient airfields, surely if you are connecting, the less congested the better. I flew LHR-CDG once on a redemption ticket, it took as long to taxi from T5 to the end of the runway as it did to fly the flight time to Paris. Why then would you choose to actively waste so much time if you want to fly MAN-LHR-JFK for example.

The idea is not to create a secondary hub in order to work independently of LHR, but rather one that would complement it. This hub would only comprise of existing routes and would have a focus on (but not limited to) connecting traffic - essentially diverting a portion of it from LHR and routing it through STN.

I can see where this thought is coming from. Lufthansa make it work operating between Frankfurt and Munich, but each hub is sufficiently apart from each other to sustain the services. They also have a huge bank of feed respectively and therein lies the answer. In order to make a hub work, it has to have a sufficient volume otherwise it is dead in the water. You have to have the short, mid and long haul all in place to ensure that the choice is there and connections are possible across the network to appeal to passengers and develop brand loyalty. Too many ideas are fly by night and short term orientated and that is why they fail. Of course two LON hubs are always going to draw comparisons between one another and that is the reason BA retrenched to LHR from LGW and likewise the American carriers. If you make £X operating from LGW and £X+1 operating from LHR for each seat you sell, it is very hard to justify LGW when LHR makes more money. For example, DL recently departed from LGW after 33 years, moving the final flight to LHR. On the last day of the DL11 LGW-ATL on the 17th and the first day DL39 LHR-ATL aswell as DL9 LHR-ATL operating across both days, whilst load factor for the two days was fairly similar, LHR had a 30% increase in bookings in C. That is where the airline makes it's money, so why would you happily accommodate non-revs and IVC's at LGW because Y is oversold but C isn't, when from LHR, C sells itself.

Considering the London-cenric view of premium airlines, the airport would have to be near(ish) London. LGW is a little inflexible because many of the 'good' slots are taken. So take I'll take STN for example. (Remember this is only an example).

It is London centric for a reason. It is an extremely affluent area, with a high population density. It is also extremely multi cultural and has a lot of historic connections across the world. Because of all this, there is a huge demand not only to come to London, but because of the established infrastructure, there is the easy ability to transit through. LGW is not only inflexible because of the lack of premium slots, it is also a rubbish airport for feed and this is one of the reasons for some many departures of scheduled carriers. A huge bulk of the passengers are travelling on LCC or charter airlines who do not interline or connect through ticketing, therefore for a foreign scheduled carrier, where do you get your feed from. Easyjet is the golden carrier at LGW and GAL favour them enormously, despite the attempts to divest by attracting Asian carriers.

There are as many as 14 BA/AA LHR-JFK flights a day. There are many other routes with a large number of frequencies. Cut some of them. Based upon customer data, select a small number of frequencies to cut and then move them to STN. These moves could also be bulked up for growth and flexibility. For example, cut 2 JFK frequencies and add 3 to STN, cut 2 FRA frequencies and add 3 to STN and so on. Time the flights to optimise connections.

There are 14 frequencies for a reason. Yes, BA might be able to use these slots to serve another route elsewhere, but would they make as much money doing so? LON-NYC serves 250,000 people a month in both directions, one of the largest single markets from LHR and because of the length of the sector, premium cabins are attractive and yeild results. Therefore, cater well to a market like this, or do you send the aircraft to some where else, where F and C yeilds are lower. This not only loses you money, it loses you passengers. As I said previously, STN will yield £X and LHR will yield £X+1 but the aircraft will burn the same amount of fuel on both routes, so what makes the most financial sense?

Operating costs at STN would be notably cheaper than LHR. Creating a lean structure for the new devision, rather like the Mixed Fleet initiative, will help to keep costs down even further. Utilising aircraft such as the 787 on long haul sectors will also improve financial viability. The savings (or part of them) would then be passed on to the customers, offering an incentive to travel through the new hub. Highlight the cheaper prices. Let those who regularly connect know. Market the fact that is is cheaper and drive as much connecting traffic through the new hub rather than LHR.

But you end up duplicating roles. Not only does this cost money, it adds to complexity in the corporate structure.

Utilising aircraft such as the 787 will also imrpove financial viability, but it will further improve profit margins at LHR on existing routes.

What are you acheiving in making the prices cheaper. That is only damaging yeild. Yield is an ever chainging and fluctuating number, so any erosion of such is a negative. It means you are giving away something. It like when you downsize a route from a 744 to an A333. Not only do you improve costs, you also lose the need to sell the deep discounted tickets that you once had to sell in Y to fill the aircraft. Thus you increase the yield on the seats you sell.

• It creates and allows for growth on existing LHR routes.
• It offers many UK residents a more convenient choice.
• It offers customers both in the UK and abroad a cheaper choice.
• It frees up some slots at LHR for further growth in new markets.
• It builds the Stansted name internationally.

Freeing up slots at LHR is about the only benefit here. But at what cost? It would be more beneficial taking one of those free slots at a unfavoured time than more a route from LHR.

By having a comprehensive full service airline offering to key world cities, the Stansted airport name could be taken further and become more recognised in the international market. This potential could then be harnessed to initiate plans to improve links to London, particularly optimising and creating faster links with the Stansted Express. This in turn would make the airport even more marketable to non-connecting traffic. It must be noted that NRT is further away from Tokyo than Stansted is from London.

The only way this would work would be to start a new airline, with a huge capital reserve to acheive critical mass quickly. The reason Easyjet works on short haul is because of it's cost structure, modern employment contracts, no incumbent costs from decades of trading etc. I am not even sure you would have to even destroy the onboard service in order to acheive this. Look at Jetblue for example, only around 130 seats on a A320, comfortable onboard service. Match this with a market leading long haul product and offer people what they want and I am sure that you would be able to generate a market. The problem is O/D pax are unlikely to travel north to use you, as are the businesses from LON. Connecting pax might be persuaded to though. But O/D is going to make up at least 50% of the load factor in all likelyhood, more if you are a new business. So the answer is that you would have to move sufficiently away from LON to ensure that you can generate a yeild for the local market and comparisons are not always made back to LHR. So where would you go? In the UK, the likelyhood would be MAN as it has a good local population, but then do MAN business want a large scope of destinations? If not, then how do you sustain a route with just connecting pax.

DXB and other ME hubs have been successful because their creation did not divert traffic from existing airports. This is the problem with another London airport, that it will always weaken the revenue flows from the other airports. The single hub concept works, multiples won't.

They have been sucessful because they have effectively re-routed existing pax. Where they used to fly UK-AUS by going LHR-HKG-SYD for example, pax now go via DXB. It breaks the flights into two more balanced segments flight time wise and many perceive thier onboard product and service to be of a greater quality. Look now at how Qantas, Air NZ etc are, down to a small number of flights on what once used to be a major revenue generator for them.

It would certainly have to be a robust operation for any chance of success, no doubt at all about that. However, if the second hub doesn't have all of the LHR routes, does it matter from a connections point of view? You just connect through LHR if STN doesn't offer it. It's not designed to rid LHR completely of connecting traffic, just offering flexibility where economically possible.

Theory over practice. You would just be damaging yields. Earlier you spoke about moving over some of the flights, lessening the frequency at LHR and taking up the slack at STN. So for example,

FRA-STN-JFK
FRA-LHR-JFK

If connecting through LHR generates an extra £50 per Y seat for BA, why would they actively route pax through STN? That damages the bottom line.

It may weaken the revenue flow by taking some traffic away, but surely that can be recouped by the new hub? Furthermore, if a credible hub can be built and becomes more popular with travellers, expansion is far more attainable than at LHR. Surely it doesn't matter where the money is, as long as it's still there in one way or another? The other plus is that in return they may reach out to new markets with the slots that they have 'gained'. I suppose it depends on how much the airlines will value the extra LHR slots.

£1 does not become another £1 moving between hubs, especially across LON and that is the problem. More over C and F pax do not move. LHR is where they travel from in the greatest numbers.

The 'extra' LHR slots would have a use, but would they generate the same revenue as the lost flights? If BA moved a JFK and used it for a Manila, or a Jakata, would this generate the same RASM? In all likelyhood, no. Nothing pays quite like JFK.

It's not about taking what LHR does and moving it elsewhere. LHR will still do what it does, just slightly less of it. In return it can then open up to more of what it currently does not, but arguably should do - serve more emerging and growing markets. This is not a fix of Heathrow, and maybe the title should have been better, however it is a solution to some of it's problems and the wider issue of capacity in the South East that could be in place more quickly than any runway capacity.

I'm not suggesting anyone be moved from LHR. It is just a strategy that could be utilised. Like I said, this is mainly a BA growth idea more than anything else.

Do emerging markets make money? Whilst China is a booming economy, UK airlines only fly to the most major of cities and even with LH and AF flying to secondry cities, the number of withdrawls suggests this is not the gold mine that some expect. It might be growning on Asia to Asia routes, but Europe to Asia are different cultures and serve different markets. Same with Brazil, whilst it might be booming within S. American and Brazilian carriers are opening up new routes across the country, does a LHR-Brasilia route for example, make sense?

It's not about taking what LHR does and moving it elsewhere. It's about replicating what LHR does elsewhere. Yes, there will be a small reduction of what LHR does - but in return it is designed to allow LHR to do more of what it currently doesn't and has arguably been said it should do, i.e. operate to emerging and developing markets.

We have that, ultimately. LHR/CDG/AMS/FRA/MAD is the answer. This is a European day and age.

If BA and AA cut 2 of the 14 LHR rotations, there would still be 12. It doesn't for a second change what LHR does. Seasonal changes change frequencies all the time, and considering most of these 14 flights run within 30 minutes of each other, there would be little change. In return BA may choose to use the slots for new dailies to KIX and CTU for example

The 30 minute intervals is because that is what the market dictates. Because of the flexibility, you can sell your most expernsive flexible tickets to those who pay the most, business. That is worth a lot of revenue annually. Whilst Delta and United might not take the business with an extra one or two flights each, is it worth upsetting your best clients for one or two flights from STN?

This is what BA found when they built up LGW. For every rotation moves out of LHR, too many premium travellers elected to fly LHR-XYZ with the competition rather than jolly down Sussex way. Harsh but true.

Harsh but true is an excellent sentiment. If you have the two to compare, rightly or wrongly, LHR wins every time. I wonder though, if a new entrant operates solely from LGW and therefore does have the data to analyse against LHR, would it be happy and build a sufficient business with those that are flexible to move between the two airports.

My point is how much profit is being sacrificed due to a lack of exposure in other markets, and how much of existing revenue can still be held on to if a move to STN is made? BA do make a lot of money on LHR-JFK, but healthy chunk of that is down to connecting traffic.

But the healthy profit is established because O/D also pay the fares ex LHR along with connecting passengers. Therefore, without this demand essentially pegging the fare, the margin is lost. I don't know what you work as, but when you get into the office of an airline and start to see what a route costs to operate and translate that into passengers onboard, you begin to see every single one counts. On a £400 transatlantic flight, £100/£150 of that is the fare, the rest is taxes and charges. Then take out one crew members hotel cost for one night, then the charge for a departing passenger at LHR, an arriving passenger at JFK, ground handlers cost, etc and not much of that fare is less. If STN generates £1 less than LHR, that could be the difference between profit and loss.

How would Delta and United up the frequency if there are no slots for them to do so? Other than cutting into their own slots on other routes, which I don't think they'd want to do.

The most recent DL slot was a KLM slot previously that now operates the DL38/9 ATL flight. Joint ventures and alliances have opened up a new world to slot movements.

Maybe I am living in an idealised world. But I can't help but think what if? I realise things have happened in the past, but situations change and there there is more than one way of going about something. For it to have any chance of success it would take a hefty investment, which I suppose counts against the idea.

Absolutely no harm in thinking. It is those that think and then those that do which put man on the moon. The problem with the aviation industry is that it is so capital intensive, that mistakes can be costly. Therefore, airlines focus on what will make them the most money and stick to it. That is why BA entrenched into LHR.

A few months ago, most passengers flying to the UK just booked to Heathrow because they didn't know otherwise. Now this publicity about terminal inertia has made people think - Is there an alternative? Once people realise that there may be a better/quicker/cheaper/more convenient way to get to their destination, they are empowered.

Some people will therefore change their behaviour. That affects demand. Airlines respond to passenger demand. Sometimes. It'll take a lot to prise some airlines out of Heathrow, but if enough passengers vote with their feet, it might work.

Again, the alternative is FRA/CDG/AMS/MAD. When they choose with their feet, they take a connecting flight as out of the UK long haul, there isn't much else especially across the pond. What are they going to do otherwise, take TS from LGW and connect? LHR for all its faults, remains the choice of travellers for whatever reason.

Hub thinking is a remnant from the 70's. It's on its way out. Today, people want to travel direct - and they're willing to pay extra to do so. I'm one of those - I fly intercontinental more than once a month, and I always go direct If I can. If that means less air points, so be it. Whatever it takes.

Flying direct isn't always a possibility and many people are quite happy to. I have noticed that in particular there is a UK cultural aversion to connecting. Hubs and in particular mega hubs are a way of consolidating your airline and its the trending theme amongst carriers these days.

How many Gold Card holders do you seriously expect to see in with the Ryanair mob? Not much Exclusivity in there, so what the Hell, we need to duplicate all the lounge facilities that are already in place at LHR.

This is part of the problem with LGW also. No offence but business people do not want to sit amongst those on their annual holiday to CUN or a stag weekend to IBZ. The actual working mentality of the airport and its employees is completely different between LGW and LHR.

Where does this leave them then? After BMI growth, is that about it for the rest of time? They will have to grow BA outside LHR.

Whilst short haul still departs on A319's and long haul on 772ER's, there is always space for growth, through aircraft capacity rises. This further availability, where applicable, further entrenches the airlines position on a route.

BA are withdrawing year on year from short haul at LGW as easyJet have won the battle for Gatwick. They have a much larger operation built from scratch in a decade that overtook BA as LGW's No 1. BA long haul leisure is at LGW mainly because there's no room at LHR.

The BA LGW long haul leisure is also partly there because the pax are there at LGW as well. Its job is holidaymakers. Lets be honest and not pretend LGW is something it isn't. The only LGW route that might make sense out of LHR is BGI. Afterall, it used to be sufficient enough of a route to be served by Concorde.

Once you start listing them, there's not all that many. You are mixing up network size and equating it to profitability. They are not the same thing at all. Even the current BA wish list on the BMI takeover are pretty much kind of borderline. Seoul is not likely to be a profit maker for a few years I suspect even if it does come on line soon.

Some of the routes being mentioned seem to be "large" routes because they have enormous VFR demand. That however, does not fill the front cabins which is where the money is made.

Given the market wouldn't use Gatwick, and hasn't done every time someone has tried since BUA / Caledonian / BCAL to Laker and latterly Virgin, what is your mechanism for getting people to use Stansted or Luton? I mean it's been tried and failed so many times, what's new now? I assure you that it DOES matter where the money is as time and time again, it stays at LHR and won't budge. No matter how good your product is, outside of LHR on scheduled business premium long haul, you're screwed.

Excellent point which essentially sums up the UK market. It is LHR or nowhere.

Curiously, no one can ever put their finger on why this market situation occurs. There is no disputing it though.

Connections at STN are what exactly? When BA flew LGW-JFK, it was the weakest of all the London JFK flights and customers most certainly did not flock to it citing flexibility. Indeed Delta have just dropped LGW-ATL to build up LHR-ATL by one flight per day. Continental, US Airways and NWA all intended to maintain LGW ops when they got into LHR, within a year, all LGW ops were closed. Did customers want flexibility? Not enough to cover the extra costs and on any given asset / aircaft, it was more proftable at LHR. In this market, it's not about choice of London airport. Short haul is different where BA fly LHR/LGW/LCY-EDI, long haul is hub and spoke. Complimentary hubs do not work, I am struggling to think of one. Paris has two hubs but in different markets.

DL's load factor in C for LHR against LGW is incomparable. C is where they make their money, it is a no brainer, as much as it is disappointing to see LGW lose another carrier. It was only a matter of time as soon as they got the 09:00 slot.

With a bit of expansion, MAN could offer similar infrastructure to LHR. Then at least LHR could face some domestic Hub competition. Then let the market decide which is best.

A MAN hub could work with a new entrant. Would they be happy with less yeild and premium passengers than their European incumbents, I doubt it.



Thank you for the interesting topic and thoughts.

[oceancrosser]

I thought the UK government was doing its utmost to turn people away from connecting in the UK (read LHR) with the APD and the unique security charade. I for one will go to great lengths to use another Euro hub both on duty travels (crew member) and private travel.

[AdamFrisch]

Flying direct isn't always a possibility and many people are quite happy to. I have noticed that in particular there is a UK cultural aversion to connecting. Hubs and in particular mega hubs are a way of consolidating your airline and its the trending theme amongst carriers these days.

As TSA/Security nonsense and congestion increases every year at most of the hubs, direct flights will only increase in popularity. It's the future. Also, aircraft design is changing and we're already seeing a move towards very long range but able to support thin lines (ie 787). I certainly try to avoid hubs if I can, especially US ones (as it adds a minimum of 3-4hrs to your flight with immigration, re-checking you luggage as they won't allow checking through etc). Most of the Euro hubs aren't much better due to poor infrastructure. Dubai is better organised, but just a depressing place best avoided.

[Skipness One Echo]

That's exactly what American's Bob Crandall said in 1990 about the B767. Then Boeing built the B747-400.

[rutankrd]

The tenant of this thread is is so weak.

Many thousands of UK travels already make the choice NOT to connect over LHR every day, flying from regional airports via AMS/FRA/CDG and even further affield from Man/BHX/NCL/GLA via Dubai going East or with the exception of NCL (Insert EDI instead) going west via EWK.

These are at the expense of BA/VS and the UK economy however they are convenient and in the main competitive.

In the case of Manchester there is an extensive network of routes connecting the city globally WITHOUT transiting ANY London airport. Even Oneworld frequent flyers can avoid London to get to Asia (Finnair), South America and Miami (IBERIA) and the whole of the USA (American daily to JFK and Chicago)
Did you know you can buy a BA codeshare for Manchester to Milan/Dusseldorf/Hanover direct to this day (On FLYBE !) .

Add Qatar / Etihad /Turkish/Singapore/US Airways/Delta Virgin Atlantic - You get the picture. Transfer over LHR is an option NOT an obligation.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "I have noticed that in particular there is a UK cultural aversion to connecting."

Quote: "The UK mentality seems to be fly direct"

Maybe, maybe not. It's not that cut and dried. The success of EK, EY and QR in particular (even out of LHR) suggest not.....

Quote: "As TSA/Security nonsense and congestion increases every year at most of the hubs, direct flights will only increase in popularity. It's the future."

.....On the other hand, this is clearly making direct flights increasingly attractive, but some pax are price sensitive and connecting is often cheaper.



Quote: "A MAN hub could work with a new entrant. Would they be happy with less yeild and premium passengers than their European incumbents, I doubt it."

BE appear to be making a success of a MAN hub, albeit on a small scale.

Quote: "Many thousands of UK travels already make the choice NOT to connect over LHR every day, flying from regional airports via AMS/FRA/CDG and even further affield from Man/BHX/NCL/GLA via Dubai going East or with the exception of NCL (Insert EDI instead) going west via EWK."

Exactly, longhaul options can exist without the need for a particular carrier to have a hub at Ringway.

[Suzeman]

Yields

I remember reading that Branson gave evidence many years ago to a House of Commons Committee that the yields on his VS LHR - JFK flights were 20% higher than the ones on his LGW - JFK.

If the same sort of figure is applicable today, you can see why everyone wants to go to LHR.

Suzeman

[The SSK]

oceancrosser: I thought the UK government was doing its utmost to turn people away from connecting in the UK (read LHR) with the APD ...

No APD on (international:international) transfers in the UK

The APD policy may be stupid, but it's not that stupid (yet)

[PAXboy]

To save starting another thread ... If you think there are problems about siting an airfield, try this idea for size.

BBC News - Report recommends that Britain should build a spaceport

and the size includes a runway twice that of LHR.