Aviation White Paper 2011

[Bagso]

Suprised there has not been more discussion about a few proposals within this discussion doc due later this year...

Whilst the proposal to add the domestic APD to long haul pax using LHR etc thus penalisong pax who dont fly direct seems sensible the proposal to look at BHX as another London airport seems barmy !

Considering Manchester has three terminals two runways and is central for 75% of the country surely that that s/b the airport that s/b expanded ?

Discuss......

[wanna_be_there]

From reading the news report in the telegraph, it seems the government is going to force Euro airlines to switch multiple frequency routes to use BHX.

Whilst I dont begrudge BHX seeing more service, there are 3 points that cross my mind:

-Can the British Government have jurisdiction as to which private airline can use XXX private airport?

-Is BHX capable of handling all the extra traffic thats thrown its way? I mean, its not exactly the biggest airport in the UK now is it?

-Long haul traffic is not mentioned, but surely European airlines can contest having to move its routes out of London whilst Long haul routes get prefferential treatment?


Considering Manchester has three terminals two runways and is central for 75% of the country surely that that s/b the airport that s/b expanded ?



They seem to be hanging on this HSR link, but seem to forget, that by UK standards, its going to take about 5 years to get all the planning permissions after all the contests, then another 5 years to build. A lot can happen in 10 years. In the meantime, with a half hourly rail service to London, frequent trains northwards to scotland, MAN is primed and ready to handle traffic.
Not only capacity wise, MAN has more lounges (2xEscape, 2xServiceair, BA lounge, V-room, EK lounge, EY lounge) which is what premium pax want.

I think the government actually need to study what they intend messing around with, as it seems they dont have a clue about what they are doing.

[Bagso]

Here Here...I hope MAG marketing get stuck into this ASAP, its utter nonsense and a complete non-starter.

Manchester already has infrastructure, demand, capacity AND an existing pax market which on a number of routes is forced albeit in a subtle way via pricing and non-disclosure of "via LHR" etc to use the SE.

The airlines will simply not use it.........

[akerosid]

Remember, this is from the same crowd which, before the last election, proposed that people have a set limit of flights which they could take within a year. Legally, I can't see it being allowed.

They stopped all runway development, one of the few useful things the last govt did, so basically the White Paper - which will not involve a review of this decision, isn't going to be worth much, and frankly, I can't see the govt rowing back on this. Nor indeed can I see any of the major players - airport authorities or airlines - participating in the White Paper process and frankly, that's probably the best response.

Sit this govt out until the next one, which will hopefully have a more responsible, interested and farsighted approach to aviation.

[jubilee]

Wanna be There.

Just a small point, Man - Lon train service is every 20 minutes. Which makes getting
their even easier.
Jubilee

[Invicta DC4]

Birmingham International [connected directly to the Airport] has a service to London Euston with Virgin Trains every 20 minutes, Journey time 80 minutes.

[wanna_be_there]

Another legal aspect of this is competition. Surely MAN can contest this on the basis that BHX is getting preferential treatment from the Government. All airports across the UK should have an equal right to bid for the transferral of services.

Personally, I cant see anything comming of this, there is too much legal red tape in the way. Whilst it may sound petty, Id hope airlines withdraw services in protest rather than being told where they are allowed and not allowed to serve. After all, serving BHX over London would surely impact loads and yields, otherwise they would be serving BHX as overspill already. People outside of London and the SE rarely make trips outside of said areas for flights anyway, so why would the white paper change this.

Looks like the future of air travel really is CONdem-ed :ugh:

[nigel osborne]

Hmm Manchester central to what ??

Everyone knows that Birmingham is the central city of England(Meriden near the airport is the geographical centre of England).If youre referring central for the scottish borders and lakes then suppose it is.

The reason Birmingham is better placed to take on LHR flts is quite simple.They are closer to take on the South East overflow than Manchester or do I have my geography wrong ?

[dwlpl]

The reason is that Birmingham is the nearer to London than other big airports.

[pwalhx]

Actually we should avoid sounding like arrogant Englishmen here, Birmingham may be close to the centre of England but it is not close to the centre of Great Britain so the sensible thing would be to consider Newcastle or Durham which probably are.

However this along with the Birmingham suggestion is not sensible the reality is no airline is going to say to passengers we know you want to fly in to London but we will take you to Birmingham or Manchester which is just X hours away by train.

[Flightman]

Surely those people in the South East, overflow or not, want to fly from a South East airport?

Why would I want the hassle of getting to BHX or MAN when LHR, LGW, STN and LTN are all closer? Why penalise us for flying through LHR, when it's closest to us, and the UK's hub airport?

This lot in power are stark raving mad. :mad:

[wanna_be_there]

The reason Birmingham is better placed to take on LHR flts is quite simple.They are closer to take on the South East overflow than Manchester or do I have my geography wrong ?


But its not a simple as 'its closer to LHR'

-Govt has to realise that all airports are private business', and every UK airport should have the right to bid for services.
Unless a back-hander has been done, then Govt cant simply transfer business to BHX.
Put it another way, you wouldnt expect govt to look at a tesco store in say, London, say its too busy and tell customers to go to Asda instead. The legal aspect behind the scenes means that sainsurys could launch a costly legal campain to ask why Govt had the power to give a rival private business custom without a bidding process.

-Its the infrastructure in place that can count towards where an airline decides to go.
MAN is also easily reachable to London on a train, yes, the journey time is an extra 40 mins (on the express trains), which, lets face it, in this day and age is neither here nor there, it has countless lounges, 3 terminals to spread the capacity, most LHR Euro services have more substantial ops at MAN, such as TP/LH/SK/AF/BD/BA etc.


-Location is more central to the UK as a whole than BHX. Yes, BHX may be closer to London, but when travellers originate from the UK as a whole, those from GLA/EDI/ABZ are actually closer to MAN, and then Ireland is 'better' linked to MAN, because, as well as flights, the ports of Holyhead and Liverpool are closer to MAN, linked by motorways and Direct rail services.

So, theres a lot more to the picture than simply 'closer to London.....'

[commit aviation]

I can't see that this is possible or practical.
BA tried transferring routes around the M25 to LGW some years ago but ultimately it failed. LHR works because of the transfer possibilities which it offers. Aviation is a global business not a national one. This thread could quickly descend into LON vs BHX vs MAN. I would suggest that is pointless & irrelevant. If airlines cant fly from LHR with its transfer potential they will go to another hub which does offer those transfer options: i.e FRA/CDG.
Plus European passengers who wish to go to London wish to go to London!
Some direct UK traffic routes may develop from the regions but to try to move European routes away from LHR would be to kill the goose that lays Londons golden egg.
Not doing down the regions: I live & work in them but lets face facts - this is a non starter....

[Going loco]

The devil will be in the detail, as with most things. Its well placed between London and the South East and Manchester and the NW so there is definitely potential to do more. The main considertation will be how quick the transfer from Brum into London could be. STN works at 40-50 mins by train into central London, so why not Brum?

[dwlpl]

But its not a simple as 'its closer to LHR'

It is though.

Without knowing the context which the White paper is coming, my guess would be that they, the Government, dont want the airports around London to increase their footprints.

Solution - grow the nearest (large international) airport nearer to London.

[Bagso]

some of analysis re "the centre of England" is if you will pardon my English "utter B*****ks".

My supposition was based on the major cities and by defintion the economic activity and population centres that suround Manchester.

With regards to domestic flight connections Manchester is as well served as LHR....

If you are going to comment, at least talk sense rather than make banal stupid comments without foundation !

[wanna_be_there]

Quote:
But its not a simple as 'its closer to LHR'
It is though.



Its really really not. If thats your sole basis of why BHX should be grown over say, MAN/LPL/EMA/NCL, then I sincerly hope to god you are never let anywhere near the helm of an airport operation!

[dwlpl]

Its really really not. If thats your sole basis of why BHX should be grown over say, MAN/LPL/EMA/NCL, then I sincerly hope to god you are never let anywhere near the helm of an airport operation!

Please read what I have posted.

They, the London based Government, are coming from the position of travelling to the NEXT large international airport, thats is Birmingham.

Whatever your beliefs, the NW is twice as far away from London than Birmingham.

Also, what position do you hold at MAN?

[dwlpl]

There you go, this from Bagso and taken from another thread confirms my guess earlier was right.

the use and expansion of BHX is being touted as an answer to more runways in the SE

[mickyman]

I suppose it makes you all feel self important for a while....

MM

[crewmeal]

What airlines would want to operate into BHX anyway? Air Malta and Cyprus Airways are pulling out so BHX soon so they will loose 2 national carriers.

You can't force airlines to operate into an airport especially if the route isn't going to be viable. Brum has tried and tested many short haul routes over the years, and there have been some dummy airlines wanting to start up from Brum along with a few paper airlines. They're still waiting to see if Armenia will eventually start a route after all the fanfare last year. Air India were petitioned with God knows how many signatures for a restart. They were also wined and dined with promises made. It seem to me that too much money is being spent on 'tea and biscuits' trying to entice airlines into BHX

[nigel osborne]

Good point about Birmingham not being Central to Great Britain.

However the point I was trying to make is that Birmingham in central England is closer to the largest populated areas of Great Britain.

There are far more people living within 100/150 miles of Birmingham in every direction than there are from the same distance from Manchester or Newcastle.

As others have said whether Londoners want to travel from Birmingham longhaul rather than Heathrow, is a good question, when they don't even want to travel to London Stansted for long haul by major carriers .

[Skipness One Echo]

Considering Manchester has three terminals two runways and is central for 75% of the country surely that that s/b the airport that s/b expanded ?


In population terms? No, of course not hence the premise is faulty.

Solution - grow the nearest (large international) airport nearer to London.
No doubt, except it hasn't worked. They can't even grow the strategically important traffic they need at Gatwick so how are they going to manage it at Birmingham?

[nigel osborne]

Bagso,

There are far more people living within 100 to 150 miles of Birmingham than the same distance from Manchester, that takes it right past Leeds and as far south as the Southern Coast of England.THATS FACT !

[Ringwayman]

and perhaps we can say THAT'S FACT that despite that amount of potential passengers, so many airlines seem reluctant to start BHX but opt for MAN where they can get their fingers burnt? There's got to be a reason for that.

[Bagso]

nigel osborne

You are splitting hairs !

The point I am making is that Manchester Airport is more convenient not just for Mancunians, but for people from the "major concentrations of economic activity" Liverpool, Leeds, Bradford, Sheffield, Stoke etc. all of whom do use Manchester !

These cities are amongst the largest in the UK and are less than 1 hour away
by car or indeed train, a comfortable commute !

....by comparison there is very little feed of traffic from within Birmingham, let alone the surrounding cities of Leicester, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Dudley.

If you factor in the volume of domestic flight connections from Scotland, NI, IOM then Manchester is by far a more realistic prospect for development than Birmingham will ever be !

[Going loco]

Bagso - but despite all of this advantage, MAN is handling fewer passengers than it did before the 2nd runway opened, so what is you would like to Government to help with?

[wanna_be_there]

by comparison there is very little feed of traffic from within Birmingham, let alone the surrounding cities of Leicester, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Dudley.


I think another point to remember is, only 40% of the BHX catchment area use BHX for flights. So if BHX cant get 60% of its local population to use the airport, what hope has it got of stealing pax away from London?

The main crux of the routes the white paper aims to move to BHX, is high frequency Euro routes. When the route is still on their doorstep, why on earth is anyone going to venture outside London?

I think the one thing we can all agree on is that the plans are ludicrous and will never work, and just like the previous white papers will never be implimented!


but despite all of this advantage, MAN is handling fewer passengers than it did before the 2nd runway opened, so what is you would like to Government to help with?


Erm, that would be the economic crisis we just had, where practically all UK airport traffic was down (Bar very few exceptions), or have you been asleep the past few years?

[Going loco]

UK air traffic has grown by 29% in the last 10 years despite the recession you refer to, so what on earth are you talking about. Stop being so defensive for goodness sakes

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

This whole white paper debate is comical. It just goes to reinforce my conviction that most politicians know nothing much about very little. And few of them have ever successfully held down a real job. Keep their noses occupied in their expenses trough and away from interference in the real economy ... please.

And aren't they missing something here? If the Meddling Psychos (MP's) attempt to mandate private airline companies to operate to any destination not of their choosing, retaliation will occur. Perhaps BA will be invited to fly to Lille (for Paris), Hahn (for Frankfurt), and Thessaloniki (for Athens). Hey, they could be the new Ryanair! And of course, in the real world airlines will terminate services rather than be forced into a politically-mandated fudge. Perhaps withdrawal of air services is the true hidden agenda of these crazed MP's. Their unwholesome devotion to the whacky religion of "climate change" (sssshhhhh ... don't say "global warming") and all its associated anti-science logically implies a desire to see commercial aviation decimated.

UK politicians have a track record of negative interference concerning travel from the regions. Don't get me started on aviation bilaterals and regarding the desires of one Big Airline as being the sole definition of the national interest. Who could forget the magnificent government reassurances in the run-up to the Channel Tunnel project? Of course it is not just a humungous investment for the benefit of the South-East alone! No, we politicians will ensure that trains will run through the tunnel from all the major cities of the UK. This will benefit the whole country. But then, as soon as the Chunnel actually opened, those Westminster degenerates excused Euroscar from launching any regional rail services at all. No fare-paying service ever ran from regional cities, but of course politicians "knew" it was case proven that such services could never be viable. Thick, pigeon-fancying northerners traveling to Paris ... surely not, haw haw!!! And when Virgin applied to operate regional trains through the Chunnel after Euroscar declined the opportunity to do so? Well, that couldn't be allowed, could it?

No, if you operate an airport or airline and wish to have a Meddling Psycho (MP) or Complete Maniac (Cabinet Minister) make a decision helpful to your company, there is a time-tested procedure to be followed. Firstly, make a large donation. Secondly, pay for said MP's and afew of their mistresses / toyboys to make an 'educational' visit to a five-star spa hotel in a top resort. Throw in afew goodies. Kinky underwear, anybody? And offer them directorships in your company effective after the unwashed electorate have kicked them out. £100K per annum for attending a couple of two hour meetings per month should work well (but don't skimp on the expenses package!). Do all this and you will stand a chance of receiving a favourable decision from Westminster's finest. But don't waste your time and resources commenting on a white paper (yawn). That process is purely for the naive and deluded.

Now of course, I should point out to the good readers of PPRuNe that the above comments are purely tongue-in-cheek. In reality, all British MP's are the most honourable and intelligent representatives of our fine race. Their wisdom is boundless, their integrity is beyond reproach, and their judgment is finer than that of any unelected citizen. Their expenses claims are minimal, their public service ethos exemplary, and they would never consider the prospects of their re-election above the interests of their constituents. Westminster MP's set the standard which all good citizens should endeavour to emulate. I just want to be completely clear on that. In case there's any doubt.

Happy New Year, all!

SHED.

[AldiAl]

Shed.....post of the year...and we're only in January!


AldiAl :ok:

[OldBristolFreighter]

Unless I've overlooked it there is a key argument missing.

Just check the price of rail tickets!

[compton3bravo]

May I suggest the high speed rail link will NOT be built - too many Conservative MPs along the route with a lot of influence - and if it was it will not be ready for another 10 years! Spain has just opened another high-speed route from Madrid to Valencia so you can travel all the way from Seville to Barcelona, Malaga to Madrid onto Barcelona etc. All the UK has and will have is St Pancras to the Kent Coast! Call me an old cynic if you like but I have seen too many of these grandiose plans come to nothing over the last 50 years.

[The SSK]

A couple of points.
Within the Single Market there are no political restrictions on market access, any Community airline can fly any Community route. On routes outside the Single Market, market access is governed by bilateral treaty, airlines which have Heathrow rights may not arbitrarily be switched to Gatwick or Stansted, let alone Birmingham.

Operational constraints (e.g. slot restrictions) must be managed in a non-discriminatory way.

It is legally possible for governments to allocate routes within an ‘airport system’, providing this is done in a completely transparent and non-discriminatory way. This is done, for example, in New York and Washington (no longhaul from La Guardia and National). Historically there used to be artificial separation in London (the US carriers which were stuck at LGW until Open Skies). Going further back there was a time when Iberia, TAP and I think Alitalia were forced to move from LHR to LGW, that simply couldn’t happen today.

It ‘might’ be theoretically possible for BHX to be incorporated into the London airport system and, for proposes of traffic separation, be allocated, for example, all Scottish and Northern Ireland routes to ‘London’, but it would have to be all routes for all airlines. This clearly is a fantasy situation.

In aviation at least, this UK government seems to have a policy of announcing grand ideas and then learning the hard way they are either impractical or illegal. The sooner they start taking advice from aviation experts, rather than hardline environmentalists, the sooner they will start to avoid embarrassing climbdowns and u-turns.

[derelicte]

I like to use BHX. Park your car and just toddle along to the terminals :ok:

They should have put the new Wembley near there too IMHO.