Heathrow loses market share to London rivals
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow loses market share to London rivals
Heathrow loses market share to London rivals | Travel Retail Business
Seems that Heathrow has now dropped below 30%
Seems that Heathrow has now dropped below 30%
Taken in isolation that sounds bad but it's indicative of the strength of the economy that point to point traffic is booming to London and the other London airports with capacity can help. If you're not connecting then there are better options than LHR depending where you're heading.
Remember it's still possible to lose market share whilst making targets and growing strongly.
Remember it's still possible to lose market share whilst making targets and growing strongly.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is exactly why the case for adding a second runway at LGW (subject to cost) makes sense in addressing the capacity shortfall for London-derived demand, as opposed to pitching for increased hub interchange traffic at LHR (with all cost implications conveniently overlooked).
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: looking out of the window
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It hasnt really ,ost anything in real terms - the market is just bigger and you cant squeeze any more into heathrow, so they had to go somehwere.
If (when?) the market contracts again STN and LTN will lose out, and LHR will remain at the numbers it always has
If (when?) the market contracts again STN and LTN will lose out, and LHR will remain at the numbers it always has
Whilst our politicians 'dither and dally' over making a decision regarding runways more and more traffic will be lost to other airports. I bet the regionals are enjoying this delay and will lure more carriers their way.
No one afaik no one has put forward an argument for an additional runway at BOTH airports.
No one afaik no one has put forward an argument for an additional runway at BOTH airports.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought but say Heathrow had that extra runway open today. So which airport would be affected the most by the extra Heathrow capacity? I am thinking probably Gatwick is it gets the Heathrow over spill and that LTN and STN would be mainly unaffected.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought but say Heathrow had that extra runway open today. So which airport would be affected the most by the extra Heathrow capacity? I am thinking probably Gatwick is it gets the Heathrow over spill and that LTN and STN would be mainly unaffected.
Majority of LHR inbound and outbound traffic is routed straight in from the west (over Wales and along M4 corridor), this is away from LGW inbounds which usually route inbound over south coast.
The holds to the north west and north east of LHR are usually the busiest at any time of year, these are both close to LTN and STN respectively.
Have a look at flightradar perhaps to get a better idea.
Gatwick expansion would probably have more impact on LCY and neighbouring airports such as Bournemouth and Southampton than directly to LHR.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The article focuses on London yet quotes figures for Heathrow's share of the UK market - not the same thing. This would be valid if all UK passengers used a London airport, which of course they don't. It does not consider the possibility that more of the 23 million pax at MAN or the 10 million at BHX may be people travelling long haul who historically would have gone through LHR but are now using the increasing number of direct services at MAN/BHX or at least routing through another hub. The same applies for Scotland and a little at NCL. A trawl through the CAA statistics in detail would reveal whether this assertion is correct, but it must be to some extent otherwise the new regional long haul would not be viable. If true, it supports those who question the need for a single UK hub in the south-east of England. We keep hearing that Heathrow is full but has managed to add 10 million pax per annum over the last 5 years. Not bad.
ATC is already a nightmare in London, what would it be like with an extra runway at BOTH airports?!?
They're clever people tasked with traffic complex management, HAL haven't taken the proposal this far without discussing the impact with NATS. A number of models have already been built and run.
If true, it supports those who question the need for a single UK hub in the south-east of England
UK regional has been open to the world for years, however even optimistic upper end expansion at MAN/BHX/GLA/EDI/NCL isn't lilkely to generate the volume of inbound trade a third LHR runway offers.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
expansion at MAN/BHX/GLA/EDI/NCL isn't lilkely to generate the volume of inbound trade a third LHR runway offers.
Quite right, let's not bother then. Great news for KLM, Air France and Lufthansa and for their emplyment growth.
How is an additonal runway at a two runway airport "surprisingly limited"? There's a whole new terminal complex planned as well. Opponents love to overstate the problems, it's LHR or not at all I am afraid, even Cameron's commmision says so.
You speak sometimes like we live in a planned economy. In reality we have BFS and BHD at war, LPL and LBA trying to fend off MAN's ambitions and GLA and EDI knocking lumps out of each other. Now all very good in some ways but the lack of joined up strategy is troubling. The airlines LHR would bring in will never bring similar levels of traffic via the regions, no realistic analysis suggests they could.
Also, we're not going to market for a pint of milk. The analogy isn't realistic here.
How is an additonal runway at a two runway airport "surprisingly limited"? There's a whole new terminal complex planned as well. Opponents love to overstate the problems, it's LHR or not at all I am afraid, even Cameron's commmision says so.
combined with more efficient use of existing regional airport assets
Also, we're not going to market for a pint of milk. The analogy isn't realistic here.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, the AC did not say it's Heathrow or bust. It said Heathrow was the better option but that if LHR was not possible then LGW would be worth doing.
If the world economy holds up, we stay in the EU and its the business as usual scenario and IF it's LHR now, we will probably need LGW2 by the 2040s. That's quite a few ifs though.
If the world economy holds up, we stay in the EU and its the business as usual scenario and IF it's LHR now, we will probably need LGW2 by the 2040s. That's quite a few ifs though.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite right, let's not bother then
Great news for KLM, Air France and Lufthansa and for their emplyment growth.
Note also that the notion that lucrative long-haul services will be lost to London if LHR R3 does not proceed is pure myth. If the proposed new route is sufficiently lucrative, another short-haul service will fall off the edge to make way. We have seen yet more recent examples of this at LHR. Operators are keen to cash-in on the slots attached to financially-weak routes. It is the marginal business which is lost to LHR, not the high-end stuff.
Another widely-peddled myth is the notion that the UK will fail to win its share of business contracts if LHR R3 is not built. What poppycock. If there is lucrative business to be won executives will turn up to bid for it. Even if they have to change planes in DXB, IST or ATL on the way (what a hardship!).
How is an additonal runway at a two runway airport "surprisingly limited"?
The answer can be found in the Arnavutkoy district of Istanbul where £9Bn buys a brand new airport with terminal capacity for 90 million pax per annum, THREE runways and all the structures necessary for operational support. Of course, you will point out that London is a much higher-cost city than Istanbul, so this comparison is tainted. So let's consider another equally high-cost city. How about New York? There a major rebuild of LaGuardia Airport comes in at around USD 4Bn. That is why LHR's anticipated capacity-hike in return for the sums proposed is "surprisingly limited". 260,000 additional runway slots is the payback for the LHR R3 mega-money ... and they are already capable upto 480,000 movements anyway. Or alot more if they relax archaic night-flying bans imposed on quiet, modern types.
Opponents love to overstate the problems,
You speak sometimes like we live in a planned economy
The airlines LHR would bring in will never bring similar levels of traffic via the regions
Also, we're not going to market for a pint of milk. The analogy isn't realistic here.
I thought at the start of this thread the poster bemoaned increases at "OTHER" London airports not exactly loss of market share to Paris Frankfurt Amsterdam?
As you well know the bleed to AMS/CDG/ZRH/DXB/DOH/AUH is not short haul low cost one The risk of that loss is long haul connectivity, almost none of which is at the other London airports for reasons gone over ad nauseum.
Great local news like Cathay adding LGW or Emirates going all A388 is not driving a proper strategic benefit in that area. This was exactly why the Airports Commisions saw LHR as the only viable growth area in that market sector.
Choosing LGW, a second choice if you will, revisits the mistakes of the 70s and 80s with some airlines ending up at LGW only because they can't get into LHR. As that puts them at a competitive disadvantage against their competitors at LHR, the business case means the asset, the aircraft can be deployed via a Euro hub where their partners are stronger and offer support and feed, all of which LGW lacks. BA for example, are not looking to promote LGW as a hub, mainly because they cannot make it pay on that model.
Look at China Southern's AMS presence versus their LHR one. Garuda have become the latest airline in those markets to walk away from LGW, following Vietnam.
Different airports have different places in the wider startegy of the business.