Future of domestic routes at LHR?

[akerosid]

With new long haul routes (e.g. India) and the prospect of more (US, when the new EU/US deal comes in) in due course, something is going to have to give and I'm just wondering if we might get to a stage where domestic routes will be cut back more and more. Even with mixed mode, whenever that happens, I can see a position coming about - possibly by the end of the decade where the only domestic sectors will be MAN, EDI and GLA ... which already have significant links to other major hubs.

I know it's extremely naive to think that fairness has much to do with it, but it's strange that for an airport which is regularly described by the GOVERNMENT itself as one of the most important engines of economic growth, they seem to have very little to say (and are prepared to do less) when airlines decide to end domestic links to LHR. With a finite number of slots and the likelihood of the new runway being delayed to the far end of the next decade (if it ever happens), the prospects aren't particularly good.

Anyway, are there any views about the prospects of protecting this access?

[Dash-7 lover]

Akerosid. I agree totally on your thinking. Having worked for Brymon Airways when the PLH-NQY-LHR routes was the prime source of income for the airline and a vital link for Devon and Cornwall to the rest of the world then this is a sore subject for me. The are various issues to address with domestic routes out of LHR. Look at the routes lost from LHR ... NWI/JER/GCI/IOM/NQY/PLH/CAX/DND/LBA/HUY/BLK/BHX etc etc

The main problem is that the revenue generated from them back in the 90's wasn't all that great as approx 70% of the passengers we carried had onward connections so the fare's had to be sufficiently low enough to get bums on seats, which made the route even more susceptible to outside influences such as war and high fuel prices and extortionate landing fees. I do believe that for a 46 seater aircraft, the landing fees equated to £250,000 in one 12 month period and for a small airline, that was a large sum of money. I dread to think about the profit margins now!

Why do you think extra runway capacity in the South East seems to be taking decades!! he BAA, like with most organisations are money driven. Why waste valuable runway slots on vital regional links when we could get more passengers through with a 747. You can see why FLYBE sold their slots at LHR for £1m each, and why BA bought Brymon in '93 and Manx Airlines/British Regional in '02 purely for slot aquisition!!!

If they continue with the policy of 'bigger is better' then they will shoot themselves in the foot. Look at the growth of longhaul sectors from the regions with Continental/Emirates and Air India. With the more point-to-point flights with low cost carriers then they need to realise that LHR is ''unfashionable'' unless you live near it, and I'm sure they would rather not see a 5th runway given to regional operations, because as air travel grows then history will repeat itself and smaller carriers will find their slots pinched all over again. A 5th terminal at LHR and no extra runway capacity.......interesting times ahead.

If the situation doesn't change soon then, yes, ABZ/GLA/EDI/MAN connections to London will also die. They don't make money now......

[Runway 31]

The domestic routes mentioned while not making money on their own right bring passengers into LHR to use the international flights that do. I would suggest that if the domestic feeder routes are withdrawn, the passengers presently using LHR to go international will find other airports to use for a hub, i.e Amsterdam, Paris etc. Maybe not a bad thing.

[FlyboyBen]

An interesting idea, however if this were to eventually happen I think the government would have to step in. You have to remember that the likes Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Inverness have high numbers of business travellers with their final destination being London, i.e. they are not interested in onward travel. If these routes were cut then it would severely affect the economies of the towns and cities North of the border. If there was a lack of direct and frequent flights to the capital then it might put off a lot of businesses from locating here.

While I understand the finite number of slots at Heathrow and that these domestic flights might not be great moneyspinners, they are vital for the economy of the country. Airlines (and the airport authorities) also have a responsibility to provide a service to the country.

Remember, Heathrow is not just one of the world'd most important 'hubs' its also the main airport nation's capital and business centre.

I guess, the other option would to start (or increase) direct flights to LCY. That would make a lot of people very happy!

[N5528P]

Where is the problem?

If LHR decides to go for international flights and the necessary domestic connecting flights AND the pure domestic traffic is handled by another aiport in the area, I do not see any problem.

This problem is not unique to the greater London area - many large cities have this problem: Milan, Paris and Washington are good examples.

What I miss is the overall concept in many of this cities.

Regards, Rernhard

[HZ123]

Surely the solution to some of these route isues is to extend the use of Northolt. Rather than flap about with a third LHR runway when you have one anyway. The taxy times for a third LHR runway would be considerable and I am told that this problem of taxy time is a big issue with MAN's second runway.

[Scottie]

Think you'll find that the GLA/EDI/BFS domestic routes are some of the most profitable routes for any airline.

A while ago when BA ran 767's on the GLA/EDI to LHR run it was their most profitable route. Short sectors allowing much more utilisation equals bigger profits.

[eastern wiseguy]

Think you'll find that the GLA/EDI/BFS


Scottie ...those nice people at BA managed to turn in a loss on the BFS-LHR despite having in the region of 400000 pax per annum.They pulled out :* leaving Bmi to fly to BHD(and they are doing ok it would appear).I wonder if BA have ANY real interest in the regions.As for flying to London EZY have proved that you don't need to fly to LHR to be successful .

[Dash-7 lover]

Scottie ..... easternwiseguy is correct - just because the flight is full and you fly lots of rotations, doesn't mean it makes money..... and they don't. We constantly hear that the short haul domestic routes are BA's Achilles heal .... and why, when there is any disruption in London, do the shuttle sectors always seem to be the first to get the chop!! It could be because passenger dispersal is easy ie send them over to Midland or double up on the next shuttle???

Putting a 767 on the route may have been an attempt to increase seating to try and break even??

After being told time a time again of BA's 'commitment to the regions' then give me a break - with the closure of BHD/ABZ/LBA/NCL/GLA/PLH/JER as bases then I'm not convinced!!

I know some of the bases above were not 'mainline' but before we get into a BA Mainline vs Franchise/subsidiary argument, let me just say that the BA brand had been flown and supported out of the Westcountry for over 10 years - by a subsidiary ......


NEWSFLASH! - there is a world outside of Heathrow!!!

[akerosid]

It might sound reasonable to expect people to transfer from one airport to the other, but as someone based in Jersey, I can tell you it's a pain in the neck. Firstly, airlines generally won't interline between airports (even if they offer through fares, they won't transfer bags), then there's the transfer cost (around GBP35 return) and the possibility that the airline on the short flight may not accept the same max baggage weight as applied on the long flight.

Combine these three and you have the potential for a lot of inconvenience getting to peripheral areas. The govt has very little interest in this; it's most recent consultation document sought to exclude the removal of LHR access as a reason for arguing for regional flights; I doubt they're willing to do anything.

I had hoped that the move to mixed mode would permit some domestic flights to be ring fenced, but I think that's unlikely. What's particularly annoying is that you have routes like MAN with about 18-20 flights a day (mostly with A319s and 320s) - same to GLA and EDI, yet these cities have reasonable European connections. Surely it would make sense to reduce the number of flights on these routes, but maintain capacity: i.e. a Japanese solution (high density, one class aircraft). Again, possibly unlikely, since there's really no political will to stand up to BA.

Ultimately, I can see regional authorities and businesses clubbing together and investing in a smallish airline with significant LHR slots, as the only feasible way to protect access.

It's ironic that this complete lack of interest in the economic needs of the regions is being taken by the very department that has responsibility for their needs - the DfTR !!!

:mad: :\ :{

[Re-Heat]

Again, possibly unlikely, since there's really no political will to stand up to BA.
They are a private company and not a charity - what do you expect? It is however they who are proposing - along with others - the 3rd short runway purely for such domestic routes.

With x slots and y aircraft with z costbase, making money for PRIVATE investors, do you expect a charity handout to support a route that makes less money than a longhaul one?

Answers to "I would like to be the next airline bankruptcy".

(I apologise for my brashness, but what sort of cost base do you expect from a formerly cosseted, state-owned company, that is expected to go it alone with the constraint of unions and achieve realistic, lower costbase?)

[jamesbrownontheroad]

Think you'll find that the GLA/EDI/BFS domestic routes are some of the most profitable routes for any airline.

That's partly because they are not (currently) threatened by the railway. Manchester (just over 2 hrs), Liverpool (just over 2hrs) and Birmingham (under 1hr 30m) are all now enjoying a much more reliable and faster rail service that for door to door travel will beat any airline service when you take check-in, transfers etc into account. The railway fiasco of the last decade or so has given the airlines some breathing space to be competitive, but as more money goes in and as investment in the rails begins to pay off, it's going to get messy for the airlines.

Of those three cities you mentioned, air travel is still competitive, even when you include transfers to/from city centres.

GLA - Virgin now operates this route entirely with new trains, but it still takes at least 4hrs 39mins.

EDI - GNER have the best intercity service in the country, but's more than 3 and half hours city centre to city centre.

BFS/BHD ...... er... let me just check...... the best train/ferry crossing is (by my reckoning) 11hrs 5m.

So, Northern Ireland will remain an exception until someone tries to build a bridge or dig a tunnel (hmmm) but the Scottish hubs may have to follow the northern cities of England, and concentrate more on connecting passengers rather than point to point ones.

IMHO, the regional links won't be lost, but there's no way that Manchester (for instance) will be able to sustain the number of flights to the London airports it currently has. In 20 years time, the same will probably be true for EDI and GLA, especially if this (or successive) governments bring a pollution/fuel levy into play.

*j*

[Guern]

akerosid at least you guys in Jersey still have more choice than we do in Guernsey!

You can get direct to loads of places we can't or if we can we have to book two seperate trips eg :

LCY, Doncaster, Newcastle, Funchal, Leeds Bradford, Durham Tees Valley, Cherbourg, Paris, Dublin, Nottingham, Cardiff, Coventry, Luton, Cork, Isle of Man.

Now granted I might not be in a rush to get to some of these places but you never know when it would be useful. After all we can't hop on a train :mad:

Especially the Irish ones or those with low cost airlines at them. After all it often costs £80 return to Jersey from Guernsey before we can take advantage of them.

Rant over I will get my coat....

[Jordan D]

As a frequent LON-Edinb commuter (Uni student), and having timed the route on many occasions door-to-door flying from EDI to STN/LTN compared with train EDB (that's the offcial code for Waverley, apparently) to KGX is (if everything runs smoothly, etc.) about 1-1.5hrs quicker. So it really depends on price.

Jordan

[Exasperated]

That's partly because they are not (currently) threatened by the railway. Manchester (just over 2 hrs), Liverpool (just over 2hrs) and Birmingham (under 1hr 30m) are all now enjoying a much more reliable and faster rail service that for door to door travel will beat any airline service when you take check-in, transfers etc into account.
Why does everyone think that pax flying into the London airports all want to go to Central London.

A large percentage of LHR pax want to go to the Thames Valley or M4 Corridor so training it in to Kings Cross/Euston is a disadvantage.

Also most people don't live in the centre of Manchester/Edinburgh/Glasgow so a city centre train station does not help there either. And have you tried to park at a station for any length of time?

Ex