LONDON &SE (all airports) - strategy / hamsterwheel
 

Might I suggest we had a thread relating to all aspects of:

Rather than endless postings about a new report telling us what we've already debated a hundred times re Boris Island v Heathrow 3 v Gatwick or London Birmingham or wherever?

Anyone want to kick off?

OK I'll bite.

In every other global urban area, one major airport provides the main intercontinental hub. In other European urban areas, these hubs (CDG, AMS, FRA) all have >3 runways, if I'm not mistaken.

The first question is, is there another means to serve the London area and hence its northern European hinterland? If so, what is the alternative strategy?

If there is no alternative strategy to a 3-runway minimum hub, are all the alternatives covered by:
1. LHR,
2. new estuary airport (henceforth NEA)
3. or, as proposed in the 2003 policy document, a 3-runway STN?

If there are alternatives, what are they?

Paris has two airports.

Paris has two airports and 'dirigiste' is a French word. If the government wants someting done, like building Roissy/CDG on a greenfield site, it will get done (as long as the unions don't take to the highways to block it).

Both statements are correct, there is no contradiction. Orly is certainly a hub, but principally for domestic traffic.

Quote: "Paris has two airports and 'dirigiste' is a French word. If the government wants someting done, like building Roissy/CDG on a greenfield site, it will get done (as long as the unions don't take to the highways to block it)."


Roissy opened in 1974, Le Bourget closed, but not Orly. Conditions are completely different to the situation today in the UK.

1. Both airports in Paris were publicly owned at that time, the London equivelants are not today.

2. Air France was publicly owned at that time and could be directed by the government to hub at the new airport. The same could not happen to British Airways today.

3. The construction of Roissy did not require the closure of Orly. The supporters of a Thames airport believe the fantasy that Heathrow would close.

4. Roissy opened when governments had a stranglehold over the industry and their policies prevailed. Today we are in an era of deregulation, open skies, and even cabotage!

1. Take a loan for 100bn from the World Bank.
2. Build 4 runways and infrastructure at Upper Heyford.
3. Run HS2 through it.

Bingo, 25 mins to either central London or Birmingham and the M40 nearby.

What to do with Heathrow is the difficult bit.

Neither statement is correct.

EWR and JFK are both intercontinental hubs, ORY less so but it does have flights to Africa, Caribbean and so on.

BA fly to HND as well as NRT.

Paris technically has three airports - BVA might be a field in the middle of nowhere but it is still classed as a PAR area airport.


Now, back to London.............

Moscow only has one international airport?

Rome only has one international airport?

Milan only has one international airport?

Berlin only has one international airport?

Shall we go on? :)

I think this is correct.

EWR has much less intercontinental connectivity than JFK.
ORY has much less intercontinental connectivity than CDG.
HND has much less intercontinental connectivity than NRT.

The major hub has a gravity denied to the secondary airport. EWR is as big mainly because it was a major domestic hub in the massive US market for Continental. Paris Orly is to Air France long haul what Gatwick is to BA. They are both secondary hub, in the case of Gatwick, not even a hub.

Why should the London market want to catch a train to Upper Heyford when we can't get the peeps up front to venture into the terrors of "Gatwick". This is plain wrong but that is a very real perception amongst too many people. economy, made up of somewhat irrational people.

Zero marks (failing to read the question).

The proposition was

"Airport" is not synonymous with "hub". Nor is "international" with "intercontinental".

So, just as an example, there is only one hub airport in Moscow?

Aeroflot at SVO, yes.

As an example of what, exactly ?

To repeat, yet again, the original proposition:

Surely you're not suggesting that either DME or VKO could be described as such ?

Quote: "1. Take a loan for 100bn from the World Bank.
2. Build 4 runways and infrastructure at Upper Heyford.
3. Run HS2 through it.

Bingo, 25 mins to either central London or Birmingham and the M40 nearby."

This is "Silverstrata's folly" all over again, albeit in a better location, but it's still too far out. It's even further than "London Oxford" for Pete's sake!

Doubt if the world bank would get involved, is it in their remit?

Who takes out the loan? For the private sector it's not a good business proposition, for the banks, it's a bad loan, for the government to be involved is a criminal waste of public money.

Quote: "What to do with Heathrow is the difficult bit."

Exactly, that is the point!

Quote: "Paris technically has three airports - BVA might be a field in the middle of nowhere but it is still classed as a PAR area airport."

BVA (or perhaps "Paris-North" in FR-speak) is about 50 mi. north of the city, so the equivelant of CBG, OXF or LYX? Not sure it's an example we should be following for London!

Quote:
"So, just as an example, there is only one hub airport in Moscow?"

Quote: "Aeroflot at SVO, yes."

Not so, Moscow has a dual hub system similar to New York. SU hubs at SVO, as mentioned above, and S7 and UN at DME.

Like EWR and JFK in New York, these Moscow hub airports have a very large domestic network to back them up and provide the required connectivity. That is why the dual hub concept works in these cities and why it did not work in London before (under the disasterous "second force" policy), and will not in future.

Until the airspace around London is 'updated', another runway is a 'pipe dream!'

What gets me is the anti third runway at LHR camp which claims the environmental impact, while all the time almost. Every arrival spends 10 plus minutes in a hold, over their heads, wasting tons of fuel and increasing emissions, while waiting for space to land.

How much of an environmental impact would a new hub have in the Thames or else where? Huge! Much more than just one more runway at LHR.

Unfortunately stansted and Luton are too far out, Size limited and transport limited to be major international / intercontinental hubs.

I blame the BAA for lacking vision and action too. Changes at LHR have been slow in coming. Lack of pressure on the governments.
Just look at what has been done to LGW since it has been taken over. Total revamp and face lift. Numerous intercontinental customers have since started routes there.

Milan has two international airports. I've flown into one and out of the other in the same week.

I have taken an intercontinental ferry journey (approx 2 hours) and an intercontinental city bus.

Every definition has its limitations.

Try telling that to anyone who lives near BFS, BHX, GLA, or EDI to name but a few.

Before we begin to debate the pros and cons of a dual hub model, I think we need to establish that it most certainly does exist, even if it is not the norm.

A third runway at LHR might well land you back with the same problem a decade or so later.

A new 4+ runway airport should be able to handle traffic without stacking or waits for take off, so by your logic that would mean less impact. Building the damn thing and paying for it would be a different story.

We have to look at each option on its merits for future growth, not based on what is there now. The only current London airport we can say for certain is NOT getting another runway is LCY.

You didn't mention LGW, which is surely the second most likely option if bookies were going to give us odds on each proposal (I think we know what the first is).

Any new runway needs to be supported by new terminal(s) and enhance surface access, including rail and road. The first question has to be where a new runway might go, then the terminal, then the surface transport.

What we mustn't do is follow the example of the new BCN terminal or DEN, where the facilities are built, but no direct rail link is provided.

Sort the planning out in sequence, but make sure everything that is needed is ready from day 1!

Average stack holding at Heathrow is considerably less than 10 minutes per arrival.

If the stacks did not exist to buffer arriving aircraft, it would be almost impossible to operate at Heathrow's typical 99% utilisation.

Naming some airports that are local will not make intercontinental activity at EWR the same as JFK. It is by any fair definintion, secondary.