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)

Prophead 7th Jun 2018 13:33

Gatwick should concentrate on improving what they have. I travelled through there last week and there were queues for all the toilets with nowhere to sit and wait for the gate. The whole place is a dump.

Against the world class terminals at LHR and the modern transport connections it is a world away.

Rutan16 7th Jun 2018 13:54

This is about UK and the southeast runway capacity in particular and that’s with what the Davies report was tasked with identifying .

It’s not and never has been about creating a Mega Hub and Spoke airport for one alliance or another !

And anyway IAG compete extensively for traffic from Southern France, Italy , Switzerland and Germany particularly on their prime long haul offerings to and from the USA.

BTW if point to point traffic from the UK regions to the major EU hubs and business centres were as low as 10% they would be losing shed loads of money.

Reality is closer to 60% being point to point particularly to Amsterdam and Paris

Point to point and full fare tickets need to be around 60% of sales (a opposed to seats occupied) to break even and indeed most are .

Paris and Amsterdam in particular generate 100s of thousands of point to point traffic both leisure and business annually
Frankfurk true rather less than that and that’s reflected in the relatively few UK points Lufthansa fly to.
Just Heathrow Birmingham Manchester and Edinburgh,
Munich has rather more point to point leisure traffic in the mix.


Navpi 7th Jun 2018 14:03

In a surprising revelation by the Transport Committee they have revealed an adverse effect on Northern airports if rw3 goes ahead.

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/opinion/jayne-dowle-heathrow-airport-decision-another-snub-to-the-north-1-9196371

I wish I was in the chamber today 1330 as the TC are meeting to discuss Graylings response.

Coming as it did after the #NorthernFail announcement many journalists in the North across 21 titles who could well have been on-board with HEATHROW expansion , simply see a decision on funding rw3 coming thru at breakneck speed whilst Northern infastructure sinks ever slowly into the mire.

Another political own goal that gives wavering Mps food for thought.

No wonder Grayling is such a figure of fun

inOban 7th Jun 2018 14:21

Surely most point to point traffic from many regional airports will be using Easyjet or other loco, only the business/hub passengers will be using KLM/AF?

Rutan16 7th Jun 2018 14:26


Originally Posted by Prophead (Post 10167331)
Gatwick should concentrate on improving what they have. I travelled through there last week and there were queues for all the toilets with nowhere to sit and wait for the gate. The whole place is a dump.

Against the world class terminals at LHR and the modern transport connections it is a world away.

Just a few things for you to consider Last weekend was the beginning of the high summer holiday period and unlike Heathrow because Gatwick traffic is predominantly Point to point the 2 terminals may well have been even busier than Heathrow ( no double counting of transfer passengers !)

That said the operator has made huge strides to improve the Gatwick experience in recent years.

Your hearsay evidence should at least focus your thoughts a little on the pressures at Gatwick right now and never mind outside when at 7.30 am there are the more aircraft waiting to depart of of the single active runway stacked nose to tail along the parallel emergency runway and the taxiway than there are up the road !




Prophead 7th Jun 2018 14:42


This is about UK and the southeast runway capacity in particular and that’s with what the Davies report was tasked with identifying .

It’s not and never has been about creating a Mega Hub and Spoke airport for one alliance or another !
Sorry but that statement is just wrong.

LHR expansion and the hub idea was being approved long before the whole 'new runway anywhere in the South East' red herring was being debated. That came from a political backdown in the face of voters under the flightpath.

The reasons for expansion at Gatwick are completely separate to the reasons for expanding LHR and it is not just a case of deciding where to put a new runway in the SE. When BAA decided to expand LHR they owned LGW also.

People don't seem to be able to differentiate between the airport business and the airlines. If a 787 can be filled on a route from Doncaster to Boston then an airline will do it regardless of what is going on at Heathrow.

A third runway will not take away the profitable point to point routes from the regions. It would probably take some LH traffic from the likes of MAN who have for a long time enjoyed too large a catchment area but that's a good thing for those fed up with an early morning trek over the M62.

Prophead 7th Jun 2018 14:50


Your hearsay evidence should at least focus your thoughts a little on the pressures at Gatwick right now and never mind outside when at 7.30 am there are the more aircraft waiting to depart of of the single active runway stacked nose to tail along the parallel emergency runway and the taxiway than there are up the road !
I have never said LGW shouldn't get a new runway, it may not need it once BA & Virgin move flights back to LHR and EJ moves in but increasing charter flights to the med is a totally different business plan to what is proposed at LHR.

That being said, Heathrow has managed to build 2 world class terminals whilst being at capacity almost constantly. LGW cannot even provide clean facilities. The place was a disgrace.

Rutan16 7th Jun 2018 14:51


Originally Posted by inOban (Post 10167379)
Surely most point to point traffic from many regional airports will be using Easyjet or other loco, only the business/hub passengers will be using KLM/AF?

No not at all .

KLM/AF offer huge numbers of point to point fares particular via the consolidators and via numerous city break specialists and pick up significant amounts of leisure travellers, oh and don’t forget to Paris they have a deep joint venture operation with Flybe.


Rutan16 7th Jun 2018 15:21


Originally Posted by Prophead (Post 10167394)
Sorry but that statement is just wrong.

LHR expansion and the hub idea was being approved long before the whole 'new runway anywhere in the South East' red herring was being debated. That came from a political backdown in the face of voters under the flightpath.

The reasons for expansion at Gatwick are completely separate to the reasons for expanding LHR and it is not just a case of deciding where to put a new runway in the SE. When BAA decided to expand LHR they owned LGW also.

People don't seem to be able to differentiate between the airport business and the airlines. If a 787 can be filled on a route from Doncaster to Boston then an airline will do it regardless of what is going on at Heathrow.

A third runway will not take away the profitable point to point routes from the regions. It would probably take some LH traffic from the likes of MAN who have for a long time enjoyed too large a catchment area but that's a good thing for those fed up with an early morning trek over the M62.

Prophead what have you against having a second and major UK regional Hub admittedly supported largely via foreign carriers serving a catchment area of third of the country ?

It is the ONLY real regional airport with significant long haul built up over fourty hard years and yes there is a risk to the services down the line - nothing changes there QF and CX (now back) were encourged to pair with a certain partner carrier
Indian service were lost because of GOI interference ( needed to move migrant labour to the sandpit) some years back.
South African abandoned ship for ventures new at the end of apartheid. now effectively bankrupt!
The operator works bl**dy hard in securing service to benefit the REGION with real local jobs and benefits to the economy.
Again I can only refer you to experience with Hub and Spoke model in the US and as a French poster demonstrated above regional airports go into major decline with Hub and Spoke with loss of local jobs.

Look to Toulon an airport that barely gets 500,000 annually because AF feel they can force the local populous onto a few ATR rotations a day.

Compare to Liverpool as posted previously loss of the Heathrow shuttle ( never made money even in Cambrian days) coincided with a TEN FOLD increase in traffic with local jobs and the economy benefiting when the so called LCC carriers commenced numerous direct point to point offerings .

And what’s with the downer in the Marjority of the fare paying and travelling public that can’t afford the bath chair free newspaper sandwich and lounge experience at plus 2 ,5 and 10 times base ticket price.


Prophead 7th Jun 2018 15:31


Prophead what have you against having a second and major UK regional Hub admittedly supported largely via foreign carriers serving a catchment area of third of the country ?
Are you referring to MAN? It is a pain to get to for much of the north but was for a long time the only choice. Flying from LBA etc. to AMS or, better still LHR is a much better option.


And what’s with the downer in the Marjority of the fare paying and travelling public that can’t afford the bath chair free newspaper sandwich and lounge experience at plus 2 ,5 and 10 times base ticket price.
Not sure where you get that from?

adfly 7th Jun 2018 16:02

It is good that the Govt have finally made a move on expanding LHR after about 30 years of dithering, but surely I can't be the only one to see how this is way too little way too late?

Lets say we have a runway built and ready to go around 2025, which given the commissions, legal challenges and bodged construction companies in the pockets of politicians that are likely to appear is not particularly unrealistic. Looking at the current state of the London airports, LHR will obviously be full as it is now, LGW is getting to the same point now, so will almost certainly be 100% full in 5-7 years time. STN is likely to be close to where LGW is today, and LTN won't be far behind that. Up north I would expect MAN to be in a similar position to STN, although maybe closer to LGW as the new terminal / second runway should allow it some extra capacity. So after LHR R3 opens I'd predict about 5 years of relief for the London airport system before the whole situation starts to repeat itself.

The Govt really should have let LHR, LGW and STN build their own extra runways if they wanted too, and let the airlines and passengers decide where they want to fly from (well aware that politicians are way too spineless to make such a move...). In that situation, yes they would not all fill up evenly, but there would at least be more competition, and it could be considered a long term move. LHR would be able to boost its position as a hub but also importantly LGW and STN would be able to grow to help cater for the ever growing O+D traffic, which lets not forget, makes up the vast majority of the air traffic to and from London.

As it stands now, as soon as LHR R3 fills up then I feel we will be back to square one, except with the possibility that STN and maybe even LTN in a position to present a justifiable case for a second runway as well as LGW, meaning even longer grass will need to be found this time around...

Rutan16 7th Jun 2018 16:05

Of course I am referring to Manchester Airport- there isn’t another airport south of Lothian that compares to it and yes getting over the Pennines can be tough but still it’s only 40 miles from Leeds and even at the worst it remains considerable quicker to get to via ground transport than ANY of the London options from Yorkshire and Derbyshire .

As for Birmingham it sorely under performs to the point of blite for a variety of reasons without doubt including proximity to Heathrow.

Again what real support has BA made in developing the reinstated direct services to Heathrow NONE quite opposite in fact !
Admittedly rail remains a work in progress and no thanks to Grayling regional benefits are lost for the foreseeable on that front.

However proper funding and completion of the now fractured electrification would still be cheaper on the public purse with evident employment opportunities well beyond the M4 corridor.






MANFOD 7th Jun 2018 16:07

Rutan 16, I think you'll find that Prophead is more than happy for LHR to get the whole of the UK as its catchment area while other airports like MAN's reduce. Afraid it's the sort of arrogant attitude displayed by some avid proponents of LHR expansion. Do you recall his patronising comments about the MAN fan club and spotters which went unchallenged?

Would it really be in the overall national interest if NCL lost its EK flight, EDI its QR, BHX its AI or MAN its CX so airlines could boost already good frequencies from LHR? What about the job losses and investment in those areas even if a few might be created on Merseyside or Teesside if airlines decided flights to LHR might be viable.

And you are quite right. In terms of passengers, I believe higher growth is much more likely to come from leisure travellers and airlines such as the lo-cos than some extra feeder flights within the UK and perhaps a few more long haul routes. I would have thought LGW was more suitable for that sort of growth but then what do we ignorant Northerners know. Incidentally, in recent weeks, I've noticed there have been quite long periods of the day when holding for LGW has been far longer than that for LHR. One day last week I counted 20 a/c on approach or in the stacks for LGW. Traffic for LHR was getting in without delays or perhaps 1 small circuit.

Originally, I thought the purpose of setting up the Airport Commission was to assess the need to meet airport capacity in the South East. Wasn't it later that a requirement to retain the UK's hub status was added in the final brief?
It was almost tantamount to pointing the Commission in the right direction so they came up with the right conclusion, but I shouldn't be so cynical.

Hussar 54 7th Jun 2018 16:33

Look to Toulon an airport that barely gets 500,000 annually because AF feel they can force the local populous onto a few ATR rotations a day.

We're actually a bit better than that ( 320s and CR900s ) these days but you're more or less correct what you say - if you're going to anywhere other than Paris, nine months of the year you still have to connect through Paris, while the other three months there's still only AF who offer through fares from TLN.And no relationship with FlyBe out of TLN even though they show up a few times a week through those three months.

But I'll have to disgree with you and agree with inOban - most point-to-point travel from European Regional Airports is LCCs these days, and the European Legacies' networks in Europe are now primarily to feed their hubs. This past winter, it was possible to fly LHR > CDG > JNB with AF for less than half the price of BA's direct LHR > JNB. Conversely, BA's price for MRS > LHR > JNB was about 40% cheaper than AF via CDG.

Why ?? No idea.....

inOban 7th Jun 2018 16:37

There was an interesting post a while ago from a regular longhaul traveller, who said that the benefit of using a ME3 hub was it meant that when he landed in the UK he was home; if he came via LHR he was faced with hanging around for an infrequent and unreliable onward flight. The addition of Ethiopian will make it even easier to avoid using LHR or any European hub, not because the terminal experience is poor, but because of the way the journey is divided up into manageable sectors.

As far as most of the UK is concerned, hub and spoke out of LHR is a ship that has sailed.

Prophead 7th Jun 2018 17:52


Of course I am referring to Manchester Airport- there isn’t another airport south of Lothian that compares to it and yes getting over the Pennines can be tough but still it’s only 40 miles from Leeds and even at the worst it remains considerable quicker to get to via ground transport than ANY of the London options from Yorkshire and Derbyshire .
40 miles from Leeds maybe but having to travel from north of Leeds or East out and past York is a pain. Just getting to the M62 takes a long time for many and if you have an early morning flight in winter then the M62 is no fun. There is a direct train but, again, if you are not on the line from Leeds it's not convenient at all. The people who are local to MAN reap the benefits whilst others further afield have no option other than to hike over the pennines or go via AMS. Compare this to getting a taxi to LBA, Humberside or Durham and a quick shuttle down to LHR and there is no contest.


Rutan 16, I think you'll find that Prophead is more than happy for LHR to get the whole of the UK as its catchment area while other airports like MAN's reduce.
A ridiculous comment. If any airport can support a route then it will be taken up by an airline. LHR will not force anyone to use it and airlines are free to fly from where they want. I can only assume that by making those comments you know MAN cannot support some routes without the travellers forced to travel from far away and that these people will use a LHR hub instead. If that is the case then why should they be made to be inconvenienced just to support your local airport?


​​​​​​​Would it really be in the overall national interest if NCL lost its EK flight, EDI its QR, BHX its AI or MAN its CX so airlines could boost already good frequencies from LHR?
Why would they lose them? If CX can fill an aircraft from a much cheaper airport then why would it axe it? If, however, the only reason these flights can be viable is because large numbers of passengers are forced to undergo long and inconvenient journeys then it is in those passengers interests to get an easier option.


Originally, I thought the purpose of setting up the Airport Commission was to assess the need to meet airport capacity in the South East. Wasn't it later that a requirement to retain the UK's hub status was added in the final brief?
It was almost tantamount to pointing the Commission in the right direction so they came up with the right conclusion, but I shouldn't be so cynical.
No, originally a new runway at LHR had all but been approved and it wasn't until BAA were forced to sell Gatwick that the new owners decided they wanted one too.

Rutan16 7th Jun 2018 19:01

Actually the third runway WAS approved and signed off by the LAST Labour government then caned by Call Me Dave and his cohorts but I digress .

In your last post one could ask so equally why should anyone be forced to travel to Blackpool or Durham to make that short hop to a London Airport !

BTW few in the UK probably make a decisive choice of departure point particularly in the budget sector .
No they will look at many of those consolidators and cheap fare offers .

They may have a time frame to consider such parent and kids holiday periods and unless they are buying a package from the likes of TUI Thomas Cook or Jet2 or a low cost operator, I am afraid they are likely to see many fares from Heathrow or via one of the hubs promoted far more prominently than offerings the from their local airports including Manchester today and as always was.

Sure it’s market forces at work but makes regional airport route development even harder to achieve in the wider economy.

That adage used that if the demand exists from xyz to abc it will be met is fluff at best . I already pointed out that Manchester in particular has won and lost a number of routes for other reasons than simply bums on seats. Still it’s a cut throat commercially competitive industry.

The regional services are far more blitzed by this than any DESIRE to fly via London and significant customers and indeed trade bodies continue to propagate the myth than Heathrow is the only choice !

Still the disrupters are making progress and so much as Heathrow remains a dominant global force, I think the North needs to have an if not equal, a significant counter weight and that has to be Manchester as a split operation each side of the Pennines simply dilutes the offer to the point where it potentially collapses.
Yes it’s a similar if smaller version of the Heathrow viz Gatwick debate. I suppose.

BTW i will register and acknowledge some bias as I actually reside within 8 miles of Heathrow run a business in Kent and South Manchester inport from Mainland EU container loads of parts and see both sides.

I am far from anti additional runway capacity however have great difficulty with the current R3 proposals on costs and benefits as presented, and predicted especially when all the trends and educated analysis and models point to the major growth potential in the industry being elsewhere.

Again I note you tried to ignore the evident case that contrary to one of your arguements key tenants that being of regional services from the likes of Leeds right now already pretty much fail the test .

Again BA and indeed customers from Leeds and surroundings haven’t exactly been a sparkly success story and quite the contrary !

The use it or loss it debate at play !

Equally Liverpool HAS grown ten fold WITHOUT the direct London connection, however that said alternative Hub and Spoke routes when presented in the same market have also failed both KLM and Aer LINGUS couldn’t make Speke work for them.

Enough said this suggests to me at least anecdotally that in fact long haul travellers in these areas are actually rather smaller in number than believed and if so those future feeders will cost the public dear in PSO grants.


Prophead 7th Jun 2018 19:35


In your last post one could ask so equally why should anyone be forced to travel to Blackpool or Durham to make that short hop to a London Airport !
Because it is their local airport and a much shorter journey than MAN.


BTW few in the UK probably make a decisive choice of departure point particularly in the budget sector .
No they will look at many of those consolidators and cheap fare offers .
We are not talking about the budget sector nor are we talking about holiday charters. When talking about LHR we are generally talking about scheduled services to cities worldwide. Many of which will never be viable from a single regional airport.


​​​​​​​I think the North needs to have an if not equal, a significant counter weight and that has to be Manchester as a split operation each side of the Pennines simply dilutes the offer to the point where it potentially collapses.
There is not the infrastructure in the north to support this. Hence taking a shuttle flight to LHR onto a dedicated runway with a good connection setup works better for a large part of the north than slogging it over to MAN. We know people are currently doing just this via AMS instead of travelling through Manchester.


​​​​​​​I am far from anti additional runway capacity however have great difficulty with the current R3 proposals on costs and benefits as presented, and predicted especially when all the trends and educated analysis and models point to the major growth potential in the industry being elsewhere.
With the modern rail network being built and connected to LHR it is the only sensible option. To build Crossrail, HS2 and the western rail link to LHR and then expand LGW instead would be absurd. My view is we should expand both as they both cater for different markets but if it has to be only one then it should be LHR.


​​​​​​​Again I note you tried to ignore the evident case that contrary to one of your arguements key tenants that being of regional services from the likes of Leeds right now already pretty much fail the test .

Again BA and indeed customers from Leeds and surroundings haven’t exactly been a sparkly success story and quite the contrary
What test? The new runway is not built yet. The BA regionals are always the first to be canned when it stacks up at LHR so it isn't accurate to gauge interest in a project that isn't functional yet. I used to use this weekly to get back to Leeds and there were many people using it then and praising it. A handful of flights don't make a hub however.

Navpi 7th Jun 2018 20:53

Absolute TAXPAYER bombshell from Sky.

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/a-failure-of-the-heathrow-expansion-could-cost-taxpayers-billions-of-pounds-11397857

AndrewH52 7th Jun 2018 21:28


Originally Posted by Navpi (Post 10167697)
Absolute TAXPAYER bombshell from Sky.

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/a-fai...ounds-11397857

Absolute non-story. What company wouldn't want assurances that if it has been identified as the preferred option by Government and that same Government then changes its mind without good reason, that costs the company has incurred based on the assurances given by government shouldn't be recoverable? Any agreement would presumably also only come in to force once Parliamentary approval for the scheme was granted.


All times are GMT. The time now is 15:06.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.