Interesting points, although I don’t really agree with the SOU analogy as STN was always plugged into the London market. Remember Stansted was the home for AirUK who were more than a bit player, indeed they were a LHR operator to GCI. They had a host of UK and European connections and sold heavily on the Stansted experience to avoid a then truly awful Heathrow. (Mainly because BAA cut back on investment at LHR because the future was all about STN. Anyhoo......)
It was such a shame that a great concept as STN ended up as a loco airfield, although Ryanair, easyJet and Jet2 are way more affordable than the AirUK of the 90s.

Back to LHR, noticed Pier 3 has now joined Pier 4 and been demolished. Remote stands 210/209 in use now, T2 Phase 2 will evidently look a lot like T5A!

A Report from The Independent on Wednesday 31 March 1993 23:02 BST

STANSTED, London's third airport, was dealt a severe blow last night after American Airlines announced that it will be pulling out of the under-used airport at the end of next month.
American, the only long-haul carrier flying there, said it had decided to abandon its daily Stansted to Chicago service after losing about dollars 10m since launching the route last June.

However, the scrapping of the service is also a reflection of the fierce battle being fought between British and US carriers for survival on the transatlantic market.

BAA, the owner of Stansted, badly needs to attract more airlines and more services to the airport, having invested pounds 400m in a new terminal and rail link.

Last year the airport lost nearly pounds 29m. Although the number of passengers handled rose by a third to 2.34 million, this is less than half its 5 million capacity. Stansted has the potential to take 8 million passengers with a further satellite.

A spokeswoman for BAA said: 'Obviously, we are very sad that American has pulled out, but you have got to put it in context. Stansted is the fastest-growing airport in Europe and American accounted for only 2 per cent of passenger traffic.'

Neverthless, the airport now lacks a prestige international airline to attract other carriers. There are 12 scheduled airlines at Stansted, operating to 41 destinations compared with six carriers flying to 11 destinations two years ago.

Hans Mirka, American's senior vice-president international, said that load factors on the Stansted-Chicago route were consistently low and that the flight did not attract enough premium business travellers.

He also attacked the failure of the British government to liberalise the rules preventing American from increasing the number of US destinations served from Stansted.

This might have tempted American to continue its Chicago service. But with its aircraft less than half full compared with load factors of more than 80 per cent on its flights from Gatwick, Heathrow and Manchester, the Stansted route could not be made viable. American still operates twice- daily to Chicago from Heathrow in competition with British Airways.

I always enjoy your updates regarding the demolish work at Terminal 1 keep them coming Skip.

Thanks for the research & interesting article above...

One stat not mentioned 60,000 flew on the service...

Days after AA announced the forthcoming closure TWA confirmed it would start a STN ORD service via JFK commencing on 11.6.93,this plan became bound up in InterGovernmental politics between the USA & the UK & used also as a bargaining chip for the UK to gain rights for VIR to fly LHR-BOS.

Despite strong lobbying for the service from many quarters in the UK TWA`s plan was finally rejected by The British Secretary of State for Transport.

I remember the application made to the DOT by TWA regarding operating STN to ORD and I remember that Tower Air put in a similar application to fly from STN to JFK but as you say they got bound up in InterGovernmental politics.

Of course Tower Air they had slipped my mind...

There won't be any bidding if/when supply is greater than demand. There would be no need.

https://news.sky.com/story/stricken-hs2-contractor-carillion-in-urgent-fight-for-survival-11197537


This could be quite damaging.Lots of contracts at Heathrow are handled by Carillion.

Ps don't mention HS2:)

"At Heathrow, we deliver facilities management services across Terminals 1, 2, 3 and 5. It’s a flexible and efficient delivery model that is better for business continuity."

We are one of the largest construction and support services companies in the UK aviation sector.

Been coming for a long time.

http://www.cityam.com/277892/carilli...es-during-2017

Hi Guys

just wondering if there is any rumours of any new airlines aiming to serve LHR?

cheers

You never know with Heathrow as it's usually the current airlines expanding their operations with purchased or leased slots from other airlines or those that are operating from Gatwick but the latest airline to start operating from Heathrow is Beijing Capital Airlines from Qingdao.

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/15814820.leeds-bradford-airport-disappointed-as-british-airways-announces-flight-cuts-to-and-from-heathrow/

Lack of demand.

No night stopper and least useful schedule ever means no attempt at generating demand alas. This one remains a slot sitter until it's dropped or a night stop is trialled. This was announced a few weeks ago sadly.

Yet i believe the passenger numbers were growing on it. In the end the winners will be KLM and possibly Aer Lingus.

Likely case will be that the slots it frees up can go on more lucrative route. Maybe London Airlines have twigged that Yorkshire folk don't do posh and expensive in general

Transport Committee

Monday 15 January 2018 Meeting starts at 4.45pm

Watch on Parliament TV Live (link below) then available afterwards via link:

Parliamentlive.tv - Transport Committee

• Subject: Airports National Policy Statement
• Witnesses: Councillor Paul Hodgins, Leader of Richmond Upon Thames Council, Brendon Walsh, Chairman, and Joseph Carter, Chairman of the Transport sub-group, Heathrow Strategic Planning Group, Val Shawcross CBE, Deputy Mayor of London for Transport, and Alex Williams, Director of City Planning, Transport for London
• Witnesses: Parmjit Dhanda, Executive Director, Back Heathrow, John Stewart, Chair, Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise, and Stephen Clark, No 3rd Runway Coalition

How on earth does self-appointed whinger John Stewart even manage to get invited to address Parliament ?

Story in the Times that they're cutting 300 m off the length of proposed runway 3

Yes, there are three runway options that are part of the consultation launched today. One is the originally-planned 3500m NW runway and the two others have 300m removed from either the eastern or western end (the consultation also makes reference to chopping a bit off both ends, though that's not quantified).

Whatever the length of the runway, it would have a hump in the middle - the thresholds would be at ground level, rising by between 3m and 5m where it passes over the M25.

Lots of other interesting stuff in the (29!) consultation documents, not least the different options proposed for realigning many of the local roads.

https://www.heathrowconsultation.com

The backers of the “Heathrow Hub” rival Heathrow expansion scheme are considering legal action against the Government in the wake of the airport’s move to propose potential revisions to its plans. Heathrow Hub, fronted by former Concorde pilot Jock Lowe, has criticised the Government for allowing Heathrow to now consult on new ideas for its 3rd runway because this could change the eventual scheme from what was originally submitted and considered by the Airports Commission. Heathrow’s consultation (started 17th Jan, ends 28th March) is considering 3 different runway options, two of them for a 3,200 metres and one at 3,500 metres, slightly differently sited. This is in spite of the Government’s own documents on the expansion stipulating the need for a runway of “at least 3,500 metres”. Heathrow has to try to keep costs down, as its airlines are bitterly opposed to the cost of its proposals. The consultation also outlined potential plans for how to deal with the runway crossing the M25 motorway. Heathrow Hub said if it did launch legal proceedings, it would aim to get the money it spent submitting its proposals for expansion to the Government refunded. Heathrow airport said it thought that “providing some flexibility on the specification of the precise runway length would not undermine the NPS and its objectives”.

All three runway options are on the same line.

The two shorter options are within the footprint of the original 3,500m runway plan - it's only the thresholds that are shifted (obviously) to give the different lengths.

COBALT to launch daily LHR-LCA effective 27 March. Allocated T3 15:45/17:20.

I'll bet they are, as a 50% increase in capacity would principally serve to draw in rivals - both EasyJet (especially) and Ryanair have said they would consider slots if newly available. This would be all well and good, provided that Heathrow, not the current airlines, had paid for it, but if the current operators are to be surcharged for years to benefit their rivals, that is unreasonable.


Given that Heathrow is regulated by the government, you can't be certain what they would cook up after plundering the current operators' pockets - some formula that says the current carriers only get 25% of the additional slots.

I'm sure I read somewhere that the incumbent airlines would sue if they were surcharged versus new entrants!

IAG will bide their time and not sit back and gently waive EZY and RYR in.

Such are the joys of deregulation. The big boys can stand in the way of the new boys. Just like they did with Laker Skytrain and Virgin Atlantic. :ugh:

Were Heathrow to expand, I'd be very surprised if either EZY or RYR had any real interest in operating from there.

It would be interesting. The hike in landing fees will in some cases be double the start point of most of the EZY and RYR fares. Not sure this will put them off.
With a lower overall cost structure in other areas eg Asset costs, salaries etc and a much younger fleet i still think they they would wipe out some areas of IAG.
Probaby BA but maybe not EI.

The problem is that this might then impact the hub concept as BA tend to discount UK domestic fares but ramp up the long haul element.

There could be quite a ripple.in UK aviation.

Without a monopoly at Heathrow BA could find themselves in trouble but that then undermines the framework and hub concept that Rw3 Is supposed to solve as BA are the main provider.

Wish they would make up their mind and get on with it.

Separately sure I read somewhere that Cathay Pacific are placing A350s on two of their Heathrow 77W rotations this year.

Anyone able to firm this up and which two ?

Thanks.

EZY have already sad publicly that they'd operate from EGLL post-third runway

Yes, I know that's what they said, after all it didn't cost them anything to say it.

But when push comes to shove, I still don't think they're serious.

If EZY did start operations from LHR, i'd imagine there would be a lot of route cannibalisation with other LON airports. I could see business orientated routes leaving LGW/STN and moving to LHR, then leaving room in other airports for new destinations or increased frequency on the more popular leisure orientated route.

The airports fees would be the scary part, but there must be a premium they could exploit by going the LHR. If BA can get A320's in/out, surely EZY can

If you ever wondered why “Your London Airport, Gatwick” ran such a visceral anti LHR in the recent review, losing a part of their biggest customer was a huge consideration.

I tend to agree with Dave - without serious positive changes in airspace management and resultant declines in airborne holding, start delays etc, EZY or any other LOCO would face significant challenges to their high utilisation models as well as on time performance. It would be entertaining to listen in to RYR on Demand versus Capacity meetings though!

It's never been hard, at any stage of the debate, to work out why Gatwick want LGW to expand. :O

When sitting in a stack for LHR, I always dream of a regulation that limits the stacks for reduced fuel (and subsequent pollution) as much as for time but, both for money. A fella can dream ... :{

Do you have a preference for where you'd like to divert to? :O

Joking aside, a stack is just another word for a queue. Queing Theory 101 says that in order to sweat the maximum utilisation out of an asset with finite capacity, by far the easiest (though not the only) way is to get the customers to form an orderly queue.

HAL used to publish a factsheet on stacking, but that was withdrawn some time ago, presumably because it was considered a controversial subject:

Serious hatchet job in the Times financial pages today on R3 by Alistair Osborne (who I think is a twerp but is widely held to be really influential)

"After half a century Heathrow doesn't know where to put it's third runway... so many crucial details are still up in the air it's hard to see what the consultation is actually about... having noticed the M25 is one of the busiest roads in the UK Heathroiw says it will ensure our proposals do not result in disruption ... this includes moving the carriageway 150m west, lowering it by 7m into a tunnel and raising the runway height by 5 m - so nothing disruptive about that

Cost? LHR have reduced the costs to £ 14 Bn - but TfL estimate another £18 Bn in additional transport costs - LHR are offering a £1 Bn towards it.

Two other crucial issues - illegal air quality & noise get no more than platitudes.... No-one knows where the flight paths will be (after 50 years) so they cant measure the detailed impact on local communities "

The consultation is a sham as there will have to be another consultation when these details are known.”

H Harry.
It is not a consultation but a road show by HAL. The events are in obscure places where less folks will turn up. Please do not forget that the A4 has several options including crossing a lake and the M25, or a tunnel.
No plans for how the runways will operate, that is. A separate roadshow in the future :ugh: