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

Heathrow-2

Old 19th Dec 2017, 17:27
  #181 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: A warm pub
Posts: 1,151
Like buying a house next to a stadium and giving out about crowds....
Una Due Tfc is online now  
Old 19th Dec 2017, 17:29
  #182 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 60
Posts: 454
To be fair the much vaunted savings are for the benefit of the shareholders and HAL.

COSTS to the taxpayer are still eyewatering.

Could someone bang some heads together in order to make some savings in this area or does the taxpayer have to meekly accept them ?

Improvements to Stansted to rail would cost a pittence of what Heathrow road / rail would cost but would still make a dramatic improvement.

It would not be so bad if there were some figures on the taxpayer ROI in the form of dividends?

Last edited by Navpi; 19th Dec 2017 at 17:42.
Navpi is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2017, 18:09
  #183 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 72
Posts: 241
Maybe if the taxpayer puts up a quarter of the capital they should own/ have the right to auction a quarter of the new slots.
anothertyke is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2017, 23:27
  #184 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,915
Think you may be missing the point: with another rwy, there will be plenty of slots available, consequently slots will have no monetary value, and there will be no secondary slot market.



Improvements to Stansted to rail would cost a pittence of what Heathrow road / rail would cost but would still make a dramatic improvement.
How would the two compare in terms of a cost-benefit analysis?

Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 24th Dec 2017 at 17:28.
Fairdealfrank is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2018, 12:08
  #185 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire
Posts: 986
So much for Heathrow's owners wanting less UK domestic routes when it's offering discount deals like this in 2018.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/01/02/heathrow-slashes-passenger-charges-domestic-flights-bid-expansion/
LBIA is online now  
Old 2nd Jan 2018, 12:26
  #186 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,046
I don't recall HAL ever being on record as saying they want fewer domestic routes. When was that ?
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 2nd Jan 2018, 12:56
  #187 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: East London
Age: 36
Posts: 891
This doesn't suggest more flights, to me it seems to be trying to make existing routes more attractive. The airport needs people though the door and spending time in the terminal while they wait for connections, if a BA jet is heading off to Leeds or Inverness on a slot-sitting mission it's much better for it to be 80% full than flying fresh air around.

In LBIA's defence the airport may not have actually said they don't want any domestic, but their pricing makes it prohibititive because it's biased towards larger aircraft. With the best will in the world you aren't going to get 777s heading to Newquay or Humberside.
AirportPlanner1 is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2018, 13:38
  #188 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 401
Stansted

On the Stansted thread they are welcoming a B777 of EK later this year, which will reduce the number of miles passengers travel from Essex, the northern quarter of London, and Herts etc to LHR by road to use the normal services. Is this the future? happy new year everyone.
Trinity 09L is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2018, 14:14
  #189 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Up in the clouds
Posts: 472
While LHR is at bursting point, airlines only grow with bigger planes or new routes, the addition of STN is more of a growth plan, as it still serves to London Area with more capacity.

It probably will be the future, until the 3rd runway is built, so definately going long term
Plane.Silly is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2018, 14:16
  #190 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 72
Posts: 241
Originally Posted by Fairdealfrank View Post
Think you may be missing the point: with another rwy, there will be plenty of slots available, consequently slots will have no monetary value, and there will be no secondary slot market.

Possibly that might be true on day 1 but this is an investment for a generation or two.


I'm not sure we yet understand how the regulator intends to release the slots. Maybe not all at once in a huge splurge? Has anything been said about that?


I presume there will be a considerable diversion from the waiting room to take account of.


I could believe that arrival slots in the early morning weekdays will be close to capacity very early on while slots on a Saturday afternoon in November will be in plentiful supply for years.


Correct me if I'm wrong--- if we leave the EU, we are free to distribute the slots via whatever auction or allocation process we choose, subject only to common law?
anothertyke is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2018, 14:26
  #191 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,086
A question is who actually owns the slots.......... a Govt in need of revenue might well take them all over and auction them off to the highest bidder...............
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2018, 15:18
  #192 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,135
Originally Posted by Trinity 09L View Post
On the Stansted thread they are welcoming a B777 of EK later this year, which will reduce the number of miles passengers travel from Essex, the northern quarter of London, and Herts etc to LHR by road to use the normal services. Is this the future? happy new year everyone.
It remains to be seen, of course. There have been multiple attempts by long haul carriers at Heathrow to have a shot at parallel services from Stansted. American Airlines for example have had more than one attempt. All have previously failed, of course.

To take the Emirates example, I periodically travel for business to Dubai. And I live more conveniently close by road to Stansted than to Heathrow. And the westbound Emirates flight, daytime, is timed right. But the return is overnight, which I don't want. I want a lunchtime departure from Heathrow, on Saturday, for a midnight arrival at Dubai. So I'll still use Heathrow.
WHBM is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2018, 15:52
  #193 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: East London
Age: 36
Posts: 891
Actually this is only the fourth time, and in reality would seem to be the first genuine and sustainable attempt. The previous cases were:

1. American to Chicago. Far too early in STN's development, and politically motivated.

2. American to JFK. Clearly a spoiler for the premium carriers. Binned almost overnight after the collapse of Eos.

3. PIA to Karachi. Ceased after PIA's aircraft were banned from EU airspace.

Continental operated to Newark of course, but they were not at Heathrow at that time. This service did well, but was canned in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and the collapse in trans-Atlantic air travel.

I am in no doubt EK will do well, and I believe a second daily service will come forward within a couple of years.
AirportPlanner1 is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2018, 16:13
  #194 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 38
Posts: 6,168
Why was STN-ORD politically motivated? Btw given STN was intended for exactly that sort of operation, London’s third airport and all, two brand new satellites and people mover with airbridges and wide body parking all attached to a world class award winning fit for purpose terminal, I am puzzled why you say it was too early. The AA operation at LHR was smaller then too as much remained at LGW, whereas AA sought to beat BA in it’s own backyard by not just using LHR.

As an airport planner (!), can you add some detail? From what I heard it was simply that the yields were (very) poor. Btw if you read the STN thread when AA tried JFK there are a few people claiming yields werw good AND it was going double daily!
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2018, 16:16
  #195 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: bishops stortford herts
Posts: 1,304
AirportPlanner1..
As above...a very clear & correct explanation of previous erstwhile attempts at STN...

Last edited by southside bobby; 2nd Jan 2018 at 16:19. Reason: state original poster
southside bobby is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2018, 16:42
  #196 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: bishops stortford herts
Posts: 1,304
There remains much obfuscation concerning the AA services particularly the JFK & all posters will have their own beliefs & perhaps agenda.

There is no doubt the AA JFK was a killer service aimed at MAX & particularly EOS.

Before my time here but as to the claim the AA JFK was going double daily with other destinations planned is what we heard on the ground but which transpired ultimately to be part of the spoiling tactics & psychological warfare in place at the time.
southside bobby is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2018, 21:40
  #197 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: East London
Age: 36
Posts: 891
Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo View Post
Btw if you read the STN thread when AA tried JFK there are a few people claiming yields werw good AND it was going double daily!
The airline said it would be going double daily. I don't have any quotes to hand but I can tell you it wasn't just the dream of the local spotters.

Regarding Chicago, with the massive investment in STN a lot was done behind the scenes to get a star headliner in. Remember, at that time STN barely had any kind of meaningful European network. Just key cities in F100s and 146s plus a few small props to the likes of Maastricht. Then along comes AA with their 767. It would be quite similar to Southampton gaining such a service today.
AirportPlanner1 is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2018, 23:27
  #198 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 38
Posts: 6,168
Interesting points, although I don’t really agree with the SOU analogy as STN was always plugged into the London market. Remember Stansted was the home for AirUK who were more than a bit player, indeed they were a LHR operator to GCI. They had a host of UK and European connections and sold heavily on the Stansted experience to avoid a then truly awful Heathrow. (Mainly because BAA cut back on investment at LHR because the future was all about STN. Anyhoo......)
It was such a shame that a great concept as STN ended up as a loco airfield, although Ryanair, easyJet and Jet2 are way more affordable than the AirUK of the 90s.

Back to LHR, noticed Pier 3 has now joined Pier 4 and been demolished. Remote stands 210/209 in use now, T2 Phase 2 will evidently look a lot like T5A!
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2018, 10:46
  #199 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southampton
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo View Post
Why was STN-ORD politically motivated? Btw given STN was intended for exactly that sort of operation, Londonís third airport and all, two brand new satellites and people mover with airbridges and wide body parking all attached to a world class award winning fit for purpose terminal, I am puzzled why you say it was too early. The AA operation at LHR was smaller then too as much remained at LGW, whereas AA sought to beat BA in itís own backyard by not just using LHR.

As an airport planner (!), can you add some detail? From what I heard it was simply that the yields were (very) poor. Btw if you read the STN thread when AA tried JFK there are a few people claiming yields werw good AND it was going double daily!
A Report from The Independent on Wednesday 31 March 1993 23:02 BST

STANSTED, London's third airport, was dealt a severe blow last night after American Airlines announced that it will be pulling out of the under-used airport at the end of next month.
American, the only long-haul carrier flying there, said it had decided to abandon its daily Stansted to Chicago service after losing about dollars 10m since launching the route last June.

However, the scrapping of the service is also a reflection of the fierce battle being fought between British and US carriers for survival on the transatlantic market.

BAA, the owner of Stansted, badly needs to attract more airlines and more services to the airport, having invested pounds 400m in a new terminal and rail link.

Last year the airport lost nearly pounds 29m. Although the number of passengers handled rose by a third to 2.34 million, this is less than half its 5 million capacity. Stansted has the potential to take 8 million passengers with a further satellite.

A spokeswoman for BAA said: 'Obviously, we are very sad that American has pulled out, but you have got to put it in context. Stansted is the fastest-growing airport in Europe and American accounted for only 2 per cent of passenger traffic.'

Neverthless, the airport now lacks a prestige international airline to attract other carriers. There are 12 scheduled airlines at Stansted, operating to 41 destinations compared with six carriers flying to 11 destinations two years ago.

Hans Mirka, American's senior vice-president international, said that load factors on the Stansted-Chicago route were consistently low and that the flight did not attract enough premium business travellers.

He also attacked the failure of the British government to liberalise the rules preventing American from increasing the number of US destinations served from Stansted.

This might have tempted American to continue its Chicago service. But with its aircraft less than half full compared with load factors of more than 80 per cent on its flights from Gatwick, Heathrow and Manchester, the Stansted route could not be made viable. American still operates twice- daily to Chicago from Heathrow in competition with British Airways.
canberra97 is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2018, 10:50
  #200 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southampton
Posts: 1
I always enjoy your updates regarding the demolish work at Terminal 1 keep them coming Skip.
canberra97 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.