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)

Barling Magna 5th Jun 2018 13:34


It's about time people realised the UK is more, much more, than London and the SE
A nice thought, but it's not really true is it? Economic policy since the 1980s has been to concentrate growth and investment in London and the south east, the old regional development policy of Development Areas and Assisted Areas was swept away in the rush to let the market decide in an unbridled environment. While Scotland and Wales benefitted to some extent from their devolved authorities the result was the stagnation and decline of the English Midlands, the North West, the North East and the South West with the exception of the major conurbations where showpiece developments were permitted and used to illustrate the "success" of this new English growth policy. But step away from the showpiece developments in central Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Sheffield, Bristol and Newcastle and you find large areas of deprivation and lack of investment. This applies to many regional airports too.

Many years ago a French geographer published a book entitled Paris and the French Desert abhorring the centralisation of French life in the capital. A similar book could now be written entitled London and the English Desert. Heathrow's third runway will just continue the trend to suck life out of the regions.

Flightrider 5th Jun 2018 16:30

I see Boris is threatening to throw himself in front of a bulldozer if the Heathrow expansion goes ahead. Sounds like another perfectly good reason for as many MPs as possible to vote in favour, I'd say.

rationalfunctions 6th Jun 2018 01:49


Originally Posted by golfbananajam (Post 10165569)
Sorry RJ, I fail to see the national benefit in this.

LHR is one of the few true airport 'hubs' in Europe, serving a variety of routes that wouldn't be financially and sometimes operationally viable from individual regional airports. The new runway provides both additional capacity to facilitate domestic flights, and a number of specific measures to enhance connectivity. They outline some of these in their document 'Heathrow Bringing Britain Closer' (search this on google, I can't yet post links)

Irrespective of the debate on if the UK should grow routes from regional airports, the nation will have better access to the world through LHR expansion - albeit with a connection.

FQTLSteve 6th Jun 2018 06:24

rationalfunctions I don't see how it will improve many regional connections. KLM connect from everywhere (almost) to Schipol. The larger UK regionals MAN, BHX etc. have multiple daily frequencies to AMS, CDG, CPH, DUB, FRA, MUC and ZRH so I can't see it. What is the difference connecting at LHR to any of the other European Hubs, 1 stop connection is 1 stop whichever hub you use. The train is now more competitive for English/Welsh domestic point to point as well. I t won't make any difference to many of the larger UK airports whatsoever.

True Blue 6th Jun 2018 07:05

Hope Lgw and others wheel out their best legal people now and blow the Lhr third runway case out of the water in the courts. Great example of the establishment getting what they want. Feed the tax payer all kinds of rubbish, tell them how great an idea it is and let them pay for it. All this garbage about regional connectivity when there is not one person out there knows if any airline in interested in flying such routes. This is all about maintaining Lhr as a monopoly over long haul and higher fares with it, especially at the front end of the aircraft.

c52 6th Jun 2018 07:08

I can buy that argument to only a very small extent. Let's say there will never (in our lifetimes) be a flight from a UK regional airport to Timbuktu - and let's say there isn't even a 737-load of people wanting to go there from London - is it really OK to make a massive hub out of Heathrow just so that a number of people in the UK can fly there non-stop? If we had the 737-load it could use STN for the benefit of London people.

A hub is useful to Londoners but comes at a massive cost of investment and pollution. The price is too high. Londoners wanting to go to Timbuktu can take an indirect flight just as everyone else in the UK needs to.

True Blue 6th Jun 2018 07:47

Yes but what you will be told is that the route to Timbuktu is really important, it will be a new trade route and that the population there can't wait to get buying what we have to sell. Years later it will be seen as a bucket of lies but by then most will have forgotten what was said originally. I find it amazing that Lhr says they have a large waiting list of airlines wanting to fly there. yet as soon as a new long haul route starts from Lgw, within months slots are found for it at Lhr.And why was the commission never asked to correct their seriously inaccurate passenger figures for Lgw?

rationalfunctions 6th Jun 2018 08:05


Originally Posted by FQTLSteve (Post 10166151)
What is the difference connecting at LHR to any of the other European Hubs, 1 stop connection is 1 stop whichever hub you use.

It's a valid point but my view is that there are still reasons why LHR is important in this respect:

1) Connectivity - by many measures LHR is world's most connected airport. OAG Megahubs use a fairly robust methodology - their 2017 report shows LHR outperforming AMS, FRA, CDG etc. Therefore better access to global network within 1 stop
2) Resilience - the UK rely on other countries to provide this connectivity to other hubs, which is subject to risks. If PSOs are implemented it protects the connectivity
3) Competition - additional competition in the market should ultimately benefit consumers

That said, my view on the third runway is that this is ultimately more London-centric - they will benefit most but be adversely impacted most

Rutan16 6th Jun 2018 08:11


Originally Posted by rationalfunctions (Post 10166057)
LHR is one of the few true airport 'hubs' in Europe, serving a variety of routes that wouldn't be financially and sometimes operationally viable from individual regional airports. The new runway provides both additional capacity to facilitate domestic flights, and a number of specific measures to enhance connectivity. They outline some of these in their document 'Heathrow Bringing Britain Closer' (search this on google, I can't yet post links)

Irrespective of the debate on if the UK should grow routes from regional airports, the nation will have better access to the world through LHR expansion - albeit with a connection.

That document needs to be read with a very critical eye and specifically the reference to regional connectivity.
The range of domestic connections from/to Heathrow that are commercially viable remain and operate today.

Those that have lost service is procisely because they don’t attact sufficient traffic at commercially viable fares period.
Unless the TAX PAYER picks up the bill via PSO grants they won’t happen runway or no .

As for regional airports lets take an example when Speke had three daily Heathrow flights they bearly handled 700,000 passengers annually yet today they handle close on 5 millions - that a real local and tangible benefit to employment and the economy !
The range of direct services has gone from a few daily Irish Sea and Heathrow to more than thirty across Europe including Paris, Madrid, Amsterdam, Lisbon, and others.

The north west region also has a rapidly developing Global player just 35 miles down the road and an airport group that contains the two main box and pallet flight operations centres .

As for those routes that somehow exist because of feed into what is one of the largest O&D markets on the planet can you name them ?

If you think Chinese secondary routes- no these are almost pure O&D tourist traffic admittedly inbound they are hugely loss making heavily subsidised and more about political projection by Xi Jinping and his cohorts.British Airways found out the hard way with Chengdu it failed to meet their high set yield potential upfront from day one.

Its interesting that of the three European Hub and Spoke centres, Heathrow has only 30ish % and declining of Transit and Transfer passengers yet still handles more 70 million passengers today, think about that with the fluff of connections supporting secondary anfd thirtory routes.

Perhaps the feed is needed to support those thirty odd daily flights to that well known marginal destination with a French statue in the bay !

Not that that destroys any regional potentials at just ask the Birmingham Airport Management this week.




rationalfunctions 6th Jun 2018 10:50


Originally Posted by Rutan16 (Post 10166219)
That document needs to be read with a very critical eye and specifically the reference to regional connectivity.
The range of domestic connections from/to Heathrow that are commercially viable remain and operate today.

Those that have lost service is procisely because they donít attact sufficient traffic at commercially viable fares period.
Unless the TAX PAYER picks up the bill via PSO grants they wonít happen runway or no .

I don't disagree with you, but part of the reason that commercial viability for domestic routes with LHR has struggled is that there is expensive slot trading in the constrained environment. Allocating some of this capacity for domestic (in theory) will make other routes more affordable

Originally Posted by Rutan16 (Post 10166219)
As for those routes that somehow exist because of feed into what is one of the largest O&D markets on the planet can you name them ?

No examples/data on hand to support, just the 'conventional wisdom' (for what it's worth). Happy to be corrected though if there is evidence contrary to this...

To confirm: my position isn't that LHR third runway is a golden egg for the UK through providing regional connectivity, but on a holistic level the UK as a whole should realise some economic benefit from it

Curious Pax 6th Jun 2018 12:32


Originally Posted by Rutan16 (Post 10166219)
Those that have lost service is procisely because they donít attact sufficient traffic at commercially viable fares period.
Unless the TAX PAYER picks up the bill via PSO grants they wonít happen runway or no .

Although I am anti LHR expansion at the expense of Manchester, it is probably fair to point out that in the current constrained Heathrow many routes are likely to have been dropped not because they werenít profitable, but because their slots could be used for flights that the beancounters decided would be even more profitable. Thus if extra capacity becomes available and that choice no longer needs to be made, both routes could operate profitably.

When the new runway and all its slots become available I would expect that BA will be fighting for the lions share of them, which they will then need to find destinations for. No doubt a lot of long haul will be in there, but short haul/domestic is also likely to be a significant proportion.

Rivet Joint 6th Jun 2018 19:55


Originally Posted by golfbananajam (Post 10165569)
Sorry RJ, I fail to see the national benefit in this.

All I see is peoples homes being demolished, additional traffic on the M25 car park and access roads to LHR, even longer queues at check-in and subsequent security, more (over) crowding in the terminals, longer waits for baggage collection, more flights over London etc etc etc.

It might suit you southern softies folks, but people from north of the M25 would have been better suited by expansion of regional airports to allow some of the holiday type traffic to leave LHR, freeing it up for the so-called business traveller. For our business travel, LHR ADDS 2 hours or more and all I see are the commuter type flights leaving regional and heading to LHR

It's about time people realised the UK is more, much more, than London and the SE

Ok, before anyone gets into the intricacies, is there really a serious argument against the busiest airport in Europe expanding? Add to that the fact that LHR is second busiest airport in the WORLD by international traffic, but only the sixth busiest by total traffic. This would indicate that LHR is lacking national connections (pretty well known anyway). Easyjet have pretty much confirmed they will open a base at LHR it the third runway is built. Its safe to say regional connections will improve dramatically as a result.

I agree regional airports still play a part, and always choose to fly out of my local airport given the opportunity. Do i think it makes sense that Emirates are opening long haul routes from various regional airports, illegally subsidized by their wealthy government, whilst LHR bursts at the seams? No I do not. The skies are already extremely crowded, it surely makes sense that long haul routes are served by the largest aircraft from LHR, which are fed nationally from the regional airports (e.g. AMS, CDG etc).

All other London airports are tolerated, like all offsite airports in other countries that FR love to fly too. People only fly there as the fares are the cheapest, but they are a pain to get to. LHR has the M25 on its doorstep, the Heathrow Express connecting to Paddington Station, an underground stop at every terminal going direct into London and eventually by Crossrail. How much would it cost to connect LGW to all of that? Probably a lot more than a third runway at LHR is going to cost (and that is before the cost of a third runway at LGW is taken into account).

As for homes being demolished, LHR have long since bought most of the properties required for demolition. Plus if someone came to my door and said we will pay you much more than your property is worth I would move in a heartbeat (free money).

Crowding would no doubt be dealt with by a new terminal to serve the third runway. The toast rack model they have already started implementing is the future of airport design (another few billion LGW would need to find to even catch up with LHR).

More flights over London? Expansion at the other airports in London would not result in this? Surely larger aircraft and fewer frequencies, is more environmentally friendly than the likes of Emirates, Norwegian flying half empty jets from airports other than LHR? Not to mention LHR is long and established, putting an airport in the middle of the Thames is going to disrupt millions of people who have consciously chosen to live away from an airport. There cannot be many people still alive who moved in before LHR arrived on their doorstep?

As for Boris, he has to say he will lie down in front of the bulldozers, he represents one of the local constituencies. This from a man who is also one of the chief brexiteers. We are now open for business to the world (but only if you arrive on an Arab airline via Newcastle because we are still deciding the merits of expanding our hub!).

Rivet Joint 6th Jun 2018 20:12


Originally Posted by True Blue (Post 10166179)
Hope Lgw and others wheel out their best legal people now and blow the Lhr third runway case out of the water in the courts. Great example of the establishment getting what they want. Feed the tax payer all kinds of rubbish, tell them how great an idea it is and let them pay for it. All this garbage about regional connectivity when there is not one person out there knows if any airline in interested in flying such routes. This is all about maintaining Lhr as a monopoly over long haul and higher fares with it, especially at the front end of the aircraft.

No offence, but this is possibly the worse comment I have ever seen on this forum. You are seriously sat there hoping that substandard airports (that only exist to serve the over flow or scraps that fall off LHR's table) gang up to keep the ball and chain around the nations hub? Newsflash, brexit has happened. We cannot open for business to the world and not enable them to actually land on our soil! Meanwhile, Dubai and China would probably tarmac over a cemetery just to keep growing. Time and time again, an airline will open a route at LGW, and the second a slot comes free at LHR, the route is moved in a heartbeat. Must be a reason why these airlines do this?

Th establishment? I am assuming you have insider knowledge on the shareholder structure at LHR? I certainly did not know I had a share in LHR, news to me! It was also pretty clear in the reports that the investment would come from the private sector. If there was not a more ringing endorsement of the viability of a third runway at LHR, it is the private sector putting its hand in its pocket in the midst of brexit.

Navpi 6th Jun 2018 20:31

When failingGraylings credibility is totally shot re Northern rail it's coming to something to follow anything he does in terms of recommendations .

Even his Tory colleagues recognize he is a buffoon and would not be there but for the Prime ministers woeful position.

Wait to see if she tries to steam roller thru the Brexut bill in next 14 days. She could be history by then as could RW3.

True Blue 6th Jun 2018 20:38

River Joint. You are entitled to your opinion and so am I. I have seen enough of these wonderful forecasts over the years to realise almost all of them turn out to be something completely different . I work in the financial sector they can't even see what is coming in the next 6 months but expect us to believe their forecasts for the next 25 years and more. It is complete rubbish most of it in my opinion.

Rob Royston 6th Jun 2018 20:53

The range maps posted on the internet by Airbus show that the ME is the only place where you can fly to any airport in the world in one hop. Hence the attraction as a hub to all the world. Passengers outside close access to the large European hubs will be hard to win back from what they have become accustomed to.

Rivet Joint 6th Jun 2018 23:12


Originally Posted by True Blue (Post 10166717)
River Joint. You are entitled to your opinion and so am I. I have seen enough of these wonderful forecasts over the years to realise almost all of them turn out to be something completely different . I work in the financial sector they can't even see what is coming in the next 6 months but expect us to believe their forecasts for the next 25 years and more. It is complete rubbish most of it in my opinion.

fair enough, you are probably better placed to decide that than me. As with all big infrastructure projects it will no doubt be massively over budget and hugely delayed. Saying that, it has to be a fraction of the expense/time than a brand new airport. Look at Berlinís new airport for a start, and thatís the Germans! Like I said before, I think the ďnational interestĒ tag is valid in this situation (especially with Brexit). Like it or not, LHR is the hub of the UK, and something we should want to succeed.

Rutan16 7th Jun 2018 12:07

Prophead actually few support Boris island as an option North or South itís pure fantasy by the buffoon named !

True many in the regions are well aware of that Hanseatic hub due east and on the direct routes to Asia and those in the sandpits.

Both offer a tremendous product at a variety of price points you know capitalism at work.

Oh and with the exception of Cardiff the sandpit operators already have BA competing via Heathrow for the same trade as all those fields retain regular flights to Slough and Windsor, Spelthorne and neighbouring boroughs airfield today.

As for KLM they have been in the regions since the dawn of aviation (mini fact) and they have extensive petro chemical contracts from those east coast smaller fields they retain.
Actual point to point fares are substantial for individual travellers.

However simply planting billions of pounds worth of concrete in West London to allow EasyJet to move over the Thames really isnít value for money !

HAL still needs to win the real argument on genuine grounds such as resilience of operations ,however thatís a rather more difficult thing to present and not so glossy to sell as mythical regional connectivity and extra flights that look good but make no money for anyone to secondary Chinese cities.
Again beware of the political agendas at work.

Many do argue for Gatwick not just on cost but understanding the reality of where the market growth in aviationís is projected to be and thatís a multitude of relatively short haul flexible fares operations just the sort at Gatwick today, and inter regional short haul in Asia none of which needs the concreting over of parts of Hillingdon right now or anytime soon.












Hussar 54 7th Jun 2018 13:00

I'm not too sure what people ( on here and in government ) mean when they talk about Regional Connections.

With more capacity at Heathrow, Regional then means not just the UK, but includes all of Europe.

There are hundreds of MAN, BHX, EDI equivalents all around Europe from where passengers are required to fly to a hub for an onward connection - and this is why AF, KL, LH offer all those flights to UK and European.Regional airports to capture those passengers. Quite often, point to point traffic for, say, EDI > CDG is less than 10% of total passengers on the flight.

With more capacity and slots, expect BA to be able to challenge AF, KL and LH on much more equal terms, which would be a huge gamechanger for IAG and especially BA and more non-UK Regional Airports will see LHR as a viable Connecting Hub instead of just CDG, AMS and FRA / MUC as it is at the moment.

On the other hand, I've no idea whether IAG include the value of their LHR slots on their Balance Sheet - but if they do then they would have to write these down and which could be £billions with currenly impossible-to-get, scarce LHR slots reportedly changing hands for $50 million a throw.


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:31.


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