Heathrow-2

[SWBKCB]

With expansion, we will boost our domestic connections to 14 routes

have we misunderstood ?

How many routes do HAL operate? Making a promise they can't keep?

[Trinity 09L]

HAL make many promises, plans and financial commitments they cannot keep

[bcn_boy]

Originally Posted by SWBKCB

How many routes do HAL operate? Making a promise they can't keep?

Why are these 14 domestic routes not up and running already? Don’t believe anything that HAL state. They will never run the domestics, there is just no money to be made.

[Skipness One Echo]

Why are these 14 domestic routes not up and running already?

Because slots are constrained as there has been no runway expansion, hence existing slots are used for routes with a better chance of making money. Marginal domestic routes like LPL/NQY/MME/IOM/JER/GCI etc would in all honesty need some form of subsidy or a change in the charging regime with a third runway. It's the latter HAL are talking about.

HAL make many promises, plans and financial commitments they cannot keep

Just for fun, give me your top 5 broken promises made by HAL/BAA, genuine question as you have been local for longer than me I think?

My favourite ever broken promise was "No jets ever at LCY," as for public policy, no Parliament is ever bound by it's predecessor.

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo

Fair point, but when LGW changed their charging policy a while back, they killed flybe’s routes to INV, GCI, JER, BHD and NQY overnight. EZY was the winner but business connectivity was lost as frequency was lost, NQY-LGW was reprieved only because HMG approved a sunsidy. Now that subsidy would generate a lot more inbound traffic if it was NQY-LHR instead, due to many more connections at Hounslow Intl.

Public and private sector are interconnected more than we admit. There would be no railway without subsidy yet we see the benefit in getting us from A to B.

Yes, public and private sector are intertwined, but when two central parts of LHR's case for expansion (regional connectivity, and no taxpayer cost) are so obviously undermined it casts further doubt on their remaining claims (some of which are misleading at best, dishonest at worst).

[Heathrow Harry]

If they could get IAG to commit, legally, to serving 14 domestic routes for say 10 years people would listen

Otherwise it's smoke & mirrors
N

[bcn_boy]

Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo

Because slots are constrained as there has been no runway expansion, hence existing slots are used for routes with a better chance of making money. Marginal domestic routes like LPL/NQY/MME/IOM/JER/GCI etc would in all honesty need some form of subsidy or a change in the charging regime with a third runway. It's the latter HAL are talking about.


Just for fun, give me your top 5 broken promises made by HAL/BAA, genuine question as you have been local for longer than me I think?

My favourite ever broken promise was "No jets ever at LCY," as for public policy, no Parliament is ever bound by it's predecessor.

If they are not profitable now, they certainly won’t be with the third runway and the costs for building it which will be passed on to airlines. It’s all smoke and mirrors.

[Trinity 09L]

ATC were busy on Monday 30.4.18 between 1200 and 1400 hours there were six go-arounds due to the weather. I have seen the pattern on web tack, but unable to download the pattern of the movements/directions.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Trinity 09L

ATC were busy on Monday 30.4.18 between 1200 and 1400 hours there were six go-arounds due to the weather. I have seen the pattern on web tack, but unable to download the pattern of the movements/directions.

Links: OS453, QR003, BA855, BA919, SK531, BA343

[Trinity 09L]

DRUK
Many thanks, looks as though BA919 had the star performance.

[ETOPS]

Latest alternative expansion plans from Arora ...

Arora Group

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by ETOPS

Latest alternative expansion plans from Arora ...

Arora Group

I don't understand why this is in the news today, given that it was announced in July 2017 and reported widely in the media at the time:

Arora: What are we proposing?

BBC: 'Cheaper' Heathrow airport third runway plans proposed

As I posted as the time:

Much of the proposed savings would come, we're told, by scrapping most of the planned T6 satellites (and hence gates) and the proposed T2 expansion (ditto).

So R3 gets built, increasing passengers and movements by up to 50%, but with barely more gates than at present.

A perfect illustration of why airports don't tend to get designed by hotel developers.

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

It is symptomatic of the shambolic nature of this process that parliament are apparently going to vote to approve a scheme where LHR have recently called out to the public for fresh ideas and the rival scheme is rehashing something from a year ago.

Whilst the political part of the process continues to go round in circles, the legal, financial and environmental impediments remain.

[DaveReidUK]

Western Rail Access Consultation starts today 11th May

Western Rail Link to Heathrow

[Prophead]

The central message from the likes of BE is that there is no viable domestic market to LHR, in part because of competition from cheaper and/or better alternate options. For connecting passengers this is the European hubs, for O&D it is the other London area airport's or the railways.

You are doing what many of those against LHR expansion have been doing. You are trying to argue the case based on the current setup not the proposed final outcome. A third runway giving access onto LH routes would provide that very need for the domestic traffic from the regionals.

I don't agree that the people of Yorkshire and other regions don't care whether they change at LHR or AMS etc. When looking at connections there is always the concern that you will get stuck and it is seen as far better to be stuck in London than over the water.

Also, what are these environmental constraints you talk about?

As far as i'm concerned this will not be agreed until a decision has been made as to whether the UK wants a hub or not. If it is agreed that we do want to capture some of that traffic and income that currently goes through the likes of AMS then LHR expansion is the only answer.

HS4 will connect Heathrow and Gatwick. The closer the approval process for this gets the less chance there is of a third runway. connecting between the two via a rail line however will not be a good option however much they try and sell it.

So we really need a separate debate about the benefits to the UK of a hub setup. Only when we have answered that should we move on to whether we should build it.

Personally I believe that in a post Brexit world it will be a major asset. I also think it will provide much better access from the regonals to LH destinations as well as giving the south east more viable destinations.

[Mr Mac]

Prophead
There speaks the voice of someone living in the home counties who has not had the delightful BA announcement that having travelled over half the planet that BA have cancelled the MAN shuttle due to none specific operational reasons, and that you will now be put on a coach to MAN, which will due to traffic take a further 4 hrs, and then have a further possible 2hr drive home due to hitting rush hour. This happened to me numerous times, and do not mention when, or if your bags will arrive. To be honest anybody who lives in the SE who comments on how we need to have extra capacity for regional conductivity is missing the point as far as LH travel is concerned from the regions. That ship has largely sailed for me and many others who now travel ME3 or Europe Hub. Our national carrier is not what it was, and LHR is not a good experience to transit, which is compounded with the cancellations already mentioned. Also I am not here to financially prop up mediocre service from BA / LHR with my, or my companies money. As for travelling to London I always take the train its easier from Yorkshire. Also I understand to a degree where you are coming from, having kept a London residence and indeed worked out of there for 20 + years it is easy to believe you are indeed the centre of things as far as UK is concerned. However having now moved full time out of the SE, and working out of northern UK and Munich, the issues of regional connectivity in particular with regards LH flights are very clear and I am a committed none user of both BA and LHR unless client is adamant. As for Brexit I personally made my choice and will have to live with consequences good or bad, but I do not believe an extra runway will help UK PLC one way or the other apart from throwing more money into London infrastructure projects (new road tunnel announced today for a further Billion I see) where the north can not even get new train carriges.

Regards
Mr Mac

[Skipness One Echo]

Our national carrier is not what it was

Agree entirely, it hasn't been our national carrier since 1987,some 31 years ago.

[Prophead]

Prophead
There speaks the voice of someone living in the home counties...

Actually there speaks the voice of someone who has lived most of their life within view of LBA and used to use the LHR shuttle weekly.

Your post could just has easily have been written in support of a third runway. People keep arguing against LHR expansion based on the fact that the current arrangement doesn't work. They know that and this is why they want to expand. Domestic routes do get cancelled due to over capacity which is precisely why a third runway and new terminal with good connections is needed.

In regards to being put on buses, this has happened far more to me when travelling by train that by air. This is however the reason why I believe people would rather be stuck in London than Amsterdam.

I really don't see LHR as a London centric project. The amount of connections and access this could provide to the regionals means it's a win win for the whole of the UK. Those people you mention using AMS etc. to connect are all spending money that could & should be being spent at Heathrow.

[SWBKCB]

The amount of connections and access this could provide to the regionals means it's a win win for the whole of the UK.

Note the word "could" - call me cynical, but it's a big "if" as to whether these connections ever materialise. Given the amount of money involved it's a big gamble for the regions to support (not that I'm dumb enough to think that the money would leave the south east if it's not spent on LHR)

[Prophead]

Well LHR could never promise it, not being an airline. I am sure however that a new runway open for SH ops with an easy connection on LH destinations would create a market that would be quickly filled. Not only from the UK regions but also Europe. We would also likely see new routes to destinations that were not previously viable even for Heathrow.

I have yet to hear a decent argument against it other than spurious environmental claims, protests from the Manchester Airport fan club and those worried about house prices. All I hear is Heathrow is currently crap so we shouldn't improve it.

What is actually happening is we are allowing successive governments to get away with not making a decision for purely party political reasons and for a project this important they should no be allowed to get away with it.