PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Airlines, Airports & Routes (https://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes-85/)
-   -   Heathrow-2 (https://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/599818-heathrow-2-a.html)

WHBM 29th Jan 2018 12:13

EasyJet's whole development has been based on taking on the established carriers in city-to-city routes. Serving oddball points, Ryanair style, has not been part of their model.

Likely initial offerings for them from Heathrow would be Glasgow, Edinburgh, Amsterdam, Madrid, Paris, Nice, Athens, and such like, a small selection of good business yield routes where they have established strength at the other end as well, which they could move on to serving multiple times daily, at less than BA fares.

anothertyke 29th Jan 2018 13:48

Skipness One Echo

Rather a lot of questions there. But just on one of them, it is not really about tomorrow, it is about 2030. If the total London market is a quarter larger than today -- admittedly a big if-- then there will be quite a lot of decanting from LHR by then and quite a bit of growth which has to happen at LGW if R3 goes up the swanee.

Dobbo_Dobbo 29th Jan 2018 14:02


Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo (Post 10035046)
Has a single airline called for expansion at Gatwick rather than Heathrow?

This is not a decision that should be dictated by airlines. However, I'd guess far more airlines, or airline groups, have called for LHR to control its costs than anything else in this debate. Obviously that comes as no surprise.


Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo (Post 10035046)
It's funny watching so many selective stats being thrown around, it's just like my day job... Stats will advise and model possible outcomes, the forecasts will most likely be wildly out, mystic meg types of what something will like like in 5 years often are. It's a government's job to decide and lead, and fight the battle in the courts as required, some hope with May alas. The stats purporting to show LGW having a better ROI than LHR work if you don't want to expand LHR and inflate every cost you can while minimising the risks at LGW.

The problem LHR have is that, when the same model supported their position (i.e. LHR offers the strongest economic case) they trumpeted the finding. As they have now been found (using the same economic model) to offer a less advantageous outcome than LGW, they cannot criticise the model without looking opportunistic.


Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo (Post 10035046)
So yes, what airline wants LGW over LHR? Any?

This is not a decision taken by airlines.


Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo (Post 10035046)
If we had a 50% larger LGW tomorrow with a whole new runway, exactly who would be queuing to use it that wasn't already there today?

If we had a larger LHR who exactly would be there who aren't using it today?

Easyjet? Jet2? Ryanair? Flybe? You might get the odd full service carrier thrown in there as a new carrier (China Airlines springs to mind). If that's the case why spend the extra money on LHR when you can spend far less at LGW or STN and achieve pretty much the same outcome?


Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo (Post 10035046)
For the record I would have no issue with a new runway at both, so not anti LGW per se.

I think the problem is that,in the short term the market cannot support a new runway at both.

I agree that both should be allowed to get on with it and we'll see which scheme gets investors backing. I suspect LHR but they'd have to come up with a realistic scheme that doesn't rip off consumers by taking advantage of a monopolistic charging structure.


Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo (Post 10035046)
Is the concept of the taxpayer paying for new road and rail infrastructure so the taxpayer can get a flight on time so alien?

It is when it supports the investments made by sovereign wealth funds! I don't expect LHR or the government to fund 100% of this, but I'd expect LHR to contribute the vast majority of this (and not pass the cost on to the consumer).

Skipness One Echo 29th Jan 2018 14:35


This is not a decision that should be dictated by airlines. However, I'd guess far more airlines, or airline groups, have called for LHR to control its costs than anything else in this debate. Obviously that comes as no surprise.
Good point, just keen for us not to do a Stansted and build something the market won't use.

The problem LHR have is that, when the same model supported their position (i.e. LHR offers the strongest economic case) they trumpeted the finding. As they have now been found (using the same economic model) to offer a less advantageous outcome than LGW, they cannot criticise the model without looking opportunistic.
Again fair, but modelling is notoriously innacurate and open to scandalous mis-interpretation by all sides, see also #brexit

This is not a decision taken by airlines.
No but pointless building infrastructure if it's not used as intended, see Stansted.

If we had a larger LHR who exactly would be there who aren't using it today?
Ohh good question. I think we'd see more of the Chinese long haul players as well as China Airlines moving from Gatwick. Westjet would likely be tempted to move as well. easyJet for sure
Also a chance of LanChile, Aerolineas Argentinas, airlines to whom Gatwick would not be an option.
Cargo would also be opened up massively allowing some of the heavy traffic AMS gets and STN to a lesser extent to use LHR. Some would be net new, some would just hammer Gatwick. Time will tell.

Dobbo_Dobbo 29th Jan 2018 14:51

Fair points Skippy - time will tell!

inOban 29th Jan 2018 15:41

One of the main environmental issues with LHR is the pollution caused by LGVs queuing at the cargo terminal.

PAXboy 29th Jan 2018 20:45

I've said before - R3 will not be built. Not least of all, it's now waaay too late. The traffic has moved elsewhere and the traffic that would move in would not be enough. BUT if we could clear the stacks? That would be a huge environmental benefit.

Navpi 30th Jan 2018 08:04

"We started off with running out of runway capacity in the South East because of the rise of LoCo's and tremendous increases primarily in O&D leisure traffic."

So true.

FFMAN 30th Jan 2018 12:12

Hi guys I don't often transfer at LHR these days and not familiar with anything but your basic T5-T5 transfer but I have a trip coming up soon which will mean I transfer T5 - T2. Is this straightforward and how much time do I need?
I'm transferring BA to a non OneWorld carrier and not sure whether I will get a boarding pass at MAN for the onward. Any tips appreciated.
Thanks in advance.

Jerry123 30th Jan 2018 12:29

I don't know about the transfer at LHR as i've never done one. But with your non One World airline you may want to check and see if you can print a boarding pass out online and then you'll have it with you if you have to go through some sort of security checkpoint.

SealinkBF 30th Jan 2018 14:35

Is your travel on one ticket? ie: you can check your luggage all the way through?
It's fairly straightforward - follow the purple flight connections signs and you will end on an air-side bus transfer.
You will need to go through security again.

Otherwise you'll need to travel on the free Heathrow Express from T5 to T2/3 to check-in your luggage, go through security etc.

It's all here:
https://www.heathrow.com/flight-connections

FFMAN 1st Feb 2018 05:03

Many thanks, that's very helpful

Heathrow Harry 5th Feb 2018 08:05

Heathrow Airport's control of building costs 'abysmal' - BBC News

Heathrow Airport has a "abysmal" record of controlling building costs said the boss of British Airways-owner IAG.

Willie Walsh told the BBC that other companies should be allowed to design and build any new terminals at Heathrow. Heathrow said it did not believe such a model was appropriate.
The government is due to publish final proposals for a third runway at Heathrow in the next few months. MPs will then vote on those plans. Mr Walsh called for an end to Heathrow airport's "monopoly" on its terminals. "Heathrow Airport Limited run an airport - they're not the best at designing or building the facilities," he said. "We believe that should be left to others who are much better, and who would have a greater focus on cost control."

Mr Walsh does not think that existing terminals should be sold off, but rather that competitors should be allowed to submit proposals for developing, designing and building new terminal facilities. "It's not rocket science, there are plenty of people who have been involved in this type of construction in other areas who would be interested," he said. "We know because we've been approached by many of them, who believe that they could do this in a much more efficient way than Heathrow."

Mr Walsh's call is the latest salvo in his ongoing war of words with Heathrow, which is ultimately owned by Spanish firm Ferrovial. IAG, which owns Iberia and Aer Lingus as well as BA, controls just over half the landing slots at Heathrow - Europe's busiest airport. Mr Walsh long been a vocal critic of the fees imposed on airlines by Heathrow, which stand at about £22 per passenger.

IAG said the proposed expansion of the airport could allow independent companies to build and operate commercial facilities at the airport, including terminals. "Heathrow's had it too good for too long and the government must confirm the Civil Aviation Authority's powers to introduce this type of competition," Mr Walsh said.

A spokesperson said Heathrow wanted to ensure competition and choice between airlines at the airport: "Expansion will open up opportunities for IAG, easyJet, flybe, Virgin and dozens of international airlines with whom we are working closely to deliver expansion at close to current charges." Heathrow chief executive John Holland-Kaye is due to give evidence to MPs on the Transport Select Committee on Monday afternoon.

The third runway was due to cost almost £17bn, but Heathrow argued that it could complete the project for £14bn. Airlines fear that the airport will increase landing charges to help pay for the third runway. IAG has threatened to call for a price cap on landing charges if they do not fall after the new runway is finished. "With more passengers and the introduction of internal competition, the airport's charges should go down," Mr Walsh said. "If they remain at current levels we, along with other airlines, support a price cap to ensure they cannot rise and have written to the Transport Select Committee to highlight this."

WHBM 5th Feb 2018 09:39


Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry (Post 10042377)

Heathrow Airport has a "abysmal" record of controlling building costs said the boss of British Airways-owner IAG.

This inevitably happens where you have a Regulator who sets the revenue (charges) in a form which takes the "costs" incurred into consideration. It then is in their interests to jack the costs up as high as possible - or more precisely, as high as the regulator will let them get away with. All sorts of extras get stuck into the price for which the operator can claim a rate of return on its "investment".


But Heathrow's chief executive John Holland-Kaye accused Mr Walsh of "a blatant attempt by Mr Walsh to maintain a dominant monopoly for BA at Heathrow and to frustrate the increased airline competition that should result from expansion".
Mr H-K is entitled to his opinion. But in saying this he has shot himself in the foot on charging the current airline operators a premium to start funding the expansion.

DaveReidUK 5th Feb 2018 19:46

Booker Prize candidate?
 
Heathrow today published the latest volume of its magnum fictional "Fly Quiet & Green" opus.

With 4 quarters' results now available from the revised scheme, trends are starting to emerge.

LHR has clearly got it in for China Southern, which yet again gets massively marked down, this time by 20 places, from the position in the "league table" that its performance actually merits. Air China similarly gets demoted by more than a dozen places, as does newbie to the "Top 50" Japan Airlines.

But Air Malta, on the other hand, for some inexplicable reason again gets pushed 10 places further up the table than it should be.

Delta is another airline that seems to have incurred Heathrow's displeasure. Robbed of its rightful Number One slot in Q2, and of second place in Q3, it again qualifies for first place in Q4 but is predictably demoted to 7th place.

El Al, as is traditional, gets awarded more than double the number of points that it actually deserves.

Perhaps most outrageous of all, Flybe, which according to LHR's methodology loses over 100 points each for both its CDA adherence and its track-keeping performance, nevertheless gets propelled into first place after being awarded 930 points out of a possible 1000!

Fly Quiet & Clean Q4 2017

Navpi 7th Feb 2018 17:39

Social media is suggesting the DFT have this afternoon declared "that they will not pay a penny for tunneling, bridgework or widening of the M25".

It will be interesting to see HAL justify that cost to shareholders.

Suspect that would take Heathrow from mega profits to negative territory for decades ?

Trinity 09L 7th Feb 2018 17:55

HAL have told me they’re paying for the M25 diversion,tunnel & runway on top. As they do not know the length of R3 anything can happen :ugh:

Navpi 7th Feb 2018 18:01

So if it's not the DFT and it's NOT HAL who is it ?

Trinity 09L 7th Feb 2018 18:32

Navpi.
HAL are paying for M25, A4, A3044 etc. But not rail links. They are showing runway use, with the centre runway on mixed ops only to avoid conflict. So noise will increase above current alteration.

Navpi 7th Feb 2018 18:33

Well not according to this

Parliamentlive.tv - Transport Committee

Absolutely explicit at 1755. Costs of M25 remodelling and indeed the movement of other infastructure will be "bourne by Heathrow". The Government will however ensure via CAA that charges are not passed on to the airlines OR the passenger.

This will be news to HEATHROW who have been equally robust that their contribution is topped out at £1bn so who is paying the difference of £11bn or £17bn ?

Trinity I'm not interested in the noise issue, just cost !


All times are GMT. The time now is 22:08.


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