Time for UK airport rationalization?

[Pain in the R's]

Dr Beeching did it in the 60’s to the railways but as they were nationalised it was easy to shut loss making lines and stations.

In these days of austerity is it time to let go of some of our beloved airports and close them or at least shut down the passenger terminals and just leave them as general aviation airports where they might survive with lower running cost.

I have no agenda against any airport but one has to question why some of them linger on trying to offer passenger services when those passengers could and do use alternative airports.

So if all UK airports were state owned which airports would or should the government be closing down for the common good? Of course some struggling airports would still be needed to avoid social hardship but do we really need the following airports offering passenger services in this day and age? Should some airports be taken off my list or should some be added?

Prestwick
Teeside
Manston
Blackpool
Coventry
Doncaster
Cambridge
Oxford
Humberside
Lydd

[LTNman]

Five of those airports are coastal airports or close to the coast so have a much reduced catchment area.

[Dannyboy39]

When todays pax nos come out today - Stansted? :O:oh:

[SWBKCB]

Five years ago Southend would have been on this list - pointless discussion.

[N707ZS]

Waste of time, Pain in the @rse.

[Ernest Lanc's]

Pain in the R's

Pointless thread..
The airports you mention are not state owned like the railways..So not a chance they are a drain on national resources.

Dannyboy39

PAX numbers are irrelevant in the context of this thread. If they are drasticaly down then whatever happens - Happens..

LTNman.
Yes some are coastal airports - Which in the case of BLK which caters for ex pats, make it a niche airport and as such untouchable.

Sorry that is not relevant in this Beechingesque thread.


I have no agenda against any airport but one has to question why some of them linger on trying to offer passenger services when those passengers could and do use alternative airports.

You don't get it: do you?..If enough at BLK and others wanted to travel 60 miles to an alternative airport, then they would and market forces would close the airports.

Pain in the R's
This thread is silly and pointless...Tell us why these airports should go?.

BLK in particular are getting new routes and old routes back...Do you know something that jet2 ought to know?.:}

[davidjohnson6]

While I believe the UK has too many airports, the fact that they exist under private ownership is probably a good thing overall, since it promotes healthy competition and ensures busier airports are kept on their toes to ensure they retain business.
As an example, Doncaster is a proxy for Leeds while even the perennial laughing stock of Teesside ensures that Newcastle doesn't get too cocky and monopolistic against its airline customers.

If private companies are willing to take risks and invest money in the airports in return for the potential rewards then we should let these companies continue to do so.

[pamann]

I still think it's crazy that a country of our size has a capital city with SIX different airports serving it. Is there any other city or capital on the planet that has as many airports as we have serving London? Crazy IMHO.

[Barling Magna]

Well, for starters New York has JFK, Newark, LaGuardia, Westchester, Stewart, and Tweed New Haven. Teterboro handles some charter schedules. Long Island MacArthur is called a New York airport by Southwest AL (a la Ryanair). Republic Airport also serves NYC.

[ILS25]

Belfast City and Belfast International. Two airports pretty close to each other covering a relatively small population and cutting each others throats.

Northern Ireland has a population of around 1,789,000, has 3 airports plus Dublin Airport is only 90 minutes from Belfast.

[EI-BUD]

Please lets avoid another BFS V BHD or vv debate, it has been beaten to death, with people of varying views finding now middle ground!!!

The bottom line is private enterprise is the driver, if any airport works on a commercial basis and it has the funds to keep going it will. It is probably reasonable to assert that some of the quieter or more marginal airports may disappear over time due to the competitive environment etc.

If we take a look at the Republic of Ireland as an example, the removal of government subventions and withdrawl of some airlines have meant that some of them are scaled back to non airline activities, e.g. Galway, combination of competition from NOC and SNN and closure of Aer Arann services have put the airports future in question. etc.

[Aero Mad]

If you'll excuse the insertion of my humble opinion, I think this is rather a silly thread.

None of these airports are in state ownership, as a number of other posters have already said; we are fortunate to live in an age where if the market requires a local airport then it can operate freely as such. Manston, Lydd, Oxford, Cambridge, Humberside, Durham Tees Valley and Prestwick are all airports which could (and in several cases do) operate passenger air services for which there is demand.

Several of the airports you mention simply require investment. I won't go into the causes of perceived failure at several of the airports you mention in great detail, but let us say simply that Prestwick/Manston/Humberside all could do better with some investment and I'm led to believe that due to Infratil's UK exit and Humberside's new ownership we may see these airports do rather better in future. The latter has the unique advantage of North Sea oil traffic which certainly adds to its viability.

So, no we shouldn't ditch Britain's airports. We're jolly lucky to have them and you've only got to try to find a seat on a train to Plymouth to see what happens when they shut.

[PIK3141]

Pain in the R

You put Prestwick top of your list, but presumably you either know nothing about the place or you think you do when you clearly don't.

[Skipness One Echo]

In these days of austerity is it time to let go of some of our beloved airports and close them or at least shut down the passenger terminals and just leave them as general aviation airports where they might survive with lower running cost.
What on EARTH are you talking about? These are not state owned, they are seperate and independent businesses. As PIK3141 says quite rightly, you clearly know nought about Prestwick to suggest we close that airfield, it's an awful lot more than the terminal and Ryanair.
Teesside and Doncaster may well fade from view but the rest of the list is comparing apples, pears and sweeties.

[Fairdealfrank]

The government should not be closing airports, it's none of their business. By the same token, the government should not be stopping successful airports from expanding.

[rowly6339]

people please read the first post again. IF they were state owned IF IF IF.:ugh:

It's a hypothetical question.

[cornishsimon]

Glad to see that NQY isn't on the list !!!!

cs

[Ernest Lanc's]

Should some airports be taken off my list or should some be added?


cornishsimon

The axe could yet fall on NQY;)

[Ernest Lanc's]

people please read the first post again. IF they were state owned IF IF IF.:ugh:

It's a hypothetical question.

Yes you are right!..But it is not "hypothetical" that no airport especially on the list is state owned..So what is the point of the thread?:ugh:

[Fairdealfrank]

A hypothetical thread? Not on its own then, could mention another one about an airport in the Thames estuary......

[Pain in the R's]

What on EARTH are you talking about? These are not state owned, they are seperate and independent businesses. As PIK3141 says quite rightly, you clearly know nought about Prestwick to suggest we close that airfield, it's an awful lot more than the terminal and Ryanair.Skipness One Echo

You need to read my first post again instead of jumping in with your boots on. I never said that any airport was state owned but it would be easier to either close them or at least close the passenger terminal if suplus to requirements.

You mention Prestwick but while I agree the airport is more than Ryanair and its terminal is the terminal really needed when Glasgow can handle Prestwick's few passenger flights with ease.

I believe the airport is making a loss and the owner can't sell it. The terminal is from the 60's and lacks investment. It seems to me that Prestwick would be better off if it closed its terminal as it would lower its cost base and then maybe it would sell.

Seeing that you disagree maybe you can tell me what purpose Prestwick's terminal serves when it is losing money and will always lose money and Glasgow is only a few miles away.

[Airlift21]

Pain in the R's

I believe the airport is making a loss and the owner can't sell it
You believe or know this?

Seeing that you disagree maybe you can tell me what purpose Prestwick's terminal serves when it is losing money and will always lose money and Glasgow is only a few miles away.

Again, is this a fact or do you believe this?

Why do you think these airports should close completely or at the very least close their passenger terminals?
Who would benefit from the closure or limited use of these airports?
The passengers who enjoy the convenience of travelling from these regional airports or the workers who would lose their jobs as a result of your "hypothetical" closures?

I have to agree with the others...this is a really pointless thread, even if it is all hypothetical.

Hypothetically, there is another airport that you could add to your list.

Right at the top: 1. Boris/Silver Island/Floating/Sinking Airport.

If these airports are privately owned, then absolutely nobody would benefit from your proposed hypothetical closures.

If you look into most countries around the world, you'll find there are many airports in each.

All the airports that you've mentioned serve a purpose. Airlines don't just choose to fly from any said airport for the sake of it. If there is a demand, then there's money to be made. A couple of years down the line, your list will change as the market evolves.

Pointless! :ugh:

[Ernest Lanc's]

I never said that any airport was state owned [[[but it would be easier to either close them or at least close the passenger terminal if suplus to requirements.]]]]




There you go again!..

First, yes you did not say that the airports where state owned. Then you go on to say "but it would be easier to either close them, or at least close the passenger terminal if surplus to requirements".

What do you not understand that Prestwick or any other on your list, could close down their terminals if they wished..They could sell the land to be flattened to be built on...In fact this was the negative point that has run through the BLK thread, since BB bought the airport.

Not so cocky now though, that jet2 far from upping sticks at BLK, have added routes to the airport.

It is you that brings in the hypothetical element to this thread..Can't you see that these airports are privately owned, and speculating what could be done if they were state owned...Is just plain pointless?.

Airport in the UK are not subject to government cuts, they are accountable to their owners and have to make profits..That Pain in the R's with respect, is not that hard to understand.

[MerchantVenturer]

Is it not the case that our airport network has grown up piecemeal?

Pre-war civic pride dictated that most cities and towns of any size should have their own airport. These were in the main gradually replaced by newer airports but largely serving the same cities and often taking over redundant military fields.

As a theoretical exercise, if we could take a sheet of blank paper and plot the best sites for airports would we need as many as we currently have and would they still be in the same places?

For example, does it make ultimate sense to have two airports, potentially three (if PLH re-opens), serving the South West, or two serving Severnside (three if Gloucester is included)?

I'm not advocating closure of any of these airports. I'm merely suggesting that if it had been possible to foresee the future, and taking the above as examples, we might more efficiently now have one airport, but more centrally situated, serving the South West and one on the banks of the Severn estuary.

Then again, local and national interests would no doubt have intruded as to which side of the Severn estuary or where exactly in the South West these airports should be: it would never have been easy, even with an unobstructed view of the future.

[Ernest Lanc's]

As a theoretical exercise, if we could take a sheet of blank paper and plot the best sites for airports would we need as many as we currently have and would they still be in the same places?




Probably the answer is yes!..The reason as far as I am concerned is people have different needs from an airport.

For Example..BLK and probably SEN will be the airport of choice for those wanting a hassle free journey experience..For the who like the big airport atmosphere, the large London airports or MAN in the NW, is for them.

All these airports are..They just are, and I doubt much would change starting from scratch.

For example..Blackpool and Liverpool could be one airport, the airport could have been sighted at Southport in between the town and the city..

I doubt there would have been much support for that. Although Liverpool is also an easy airport to navigate and use.
Also some airport as you say have been at one time military, that's a fact that would not change.

Then again, local and national interests would no doubt have intruded as to which side of the Severn estuary or where exactly in the South West these airports should be: it would never have been easy, even with an unobstructed view of the future.

Exactly, and you won't change those attitudes.to be honest I for one would not want to.

[ericlday]

Yesterday at Luton I spoke to 3 different couples going to different destinations and without exception the reasons they chose to fly from Luton were price/convenience/flight timings.
One couple on the El Al flight were outbound from Luton but returning to Heathrow......purely on arrival time back into the UK.
So it is not that easy trying to encourage travelers to use the 'Local' airport as sometimes prices are greater, no flights from the airport or silly departure times.

[ConstantFlyer]

If you did a straw poll of people flying into Heathrow on a QANTAS A380, you'd probably find very few who were heading for West London or Berkshire. It is because there are few credible, convenient and value for money alternatives available to those in the regions.

After a 22hr flight from Australia, the last thing anyone wants to do is stack over London, then negotiate Heathrow's endless corridors and queues, before travelling on London's congested public transport system in rush hour, then on an expensive train half way across the country.

We'd all like the convenience of our local airport, combined with the best timings and cheapest fares. Sadly, there are no departures to Nirvana, and, along with a lot of things in life, it is a balance.

Many people in London put up with the daily grind, grime and noise in exchange for having access to several well-served airports offering competitive fares. Others prefer the more relaxed and higher quality of life and environment, better schools and less traffic of England's small towns and villages, but have further to go and more to pay to fly abroad. It is a balance.

And some people live in Luton. Well, you can't have everything. ;)

[DaveReidUK]

If you did a straw poll of people flying into Heathrow on a QANTAS A380, you'd probably find very few who were heading for West London or Berkshire.

Really ?

On average, of the two-thirds of passengers flying through Heathrow who aren't transferring to/from another flight, around half originate or terminate in Greater London, plus another 6% or so bound to/from Berks (source: CAA).

Are you suggesting that doesn't apply to QF A380 flights ?

[ConstantFlyer]

Thanks, Dave. I didn't know that. Good old CAA.

So, two-thirds are not transiting = 67%.
Half of that for Gtr London = 34%.
Say W London = a quarter of Gtr London = 9%.
Plus Berkshire's 6% = 15%.

So it's less than I thought. Just 15% of pax on all flights into LHR (on average) are headed for West London or Berkshire. I'd reckon it's more for short haul (which is reasonably well served from regional airports) and (to balance up the average) less on long haul.

The QF388 was just an example of a long haul service into LHR not available from regional airports.

[On the beach]

"around half originate or terminate in Greater London, plus another 6% or so bound to/from Berks"

Blimey, Earls Court's grown a bit then. :E

OTB

[Peter47]

Twenty years ago (or was it more) a Sunday Times commentator business commentator said that Liverpool airport was a complete white elephant and all flights should be transferred to Manchester. This was before the LoCos which rather changed things.

One things for certain. Once you close an airport political pressure will prevent its reopening.

I remember seeing some protesters who put a white elephant poster by the track side on the train coming into Stansted. A few years later 20m pax p.a.

[Ernest Lanc's]

So it is not that easy trying to encourage travelers to use the 'Local' airport as sometimes prices are greater, no flights from the airport or silly departure times.

Well I pay that tad more to fly from BLK, rather than MAN..Nothing wrong with MAN, but the walking distances at BLK are negligible.

We have no silly departure times, unless you count 7-30 am as silly..Also at BLK inbound flights are second to none.

We don't have many shops, nor a flash terminal..We do have a short walk from desks to security and again to the gates..just two eateries, one before and one after in the departure lounge..But with beer as good as Liverpool Man et al.
Point is everyone wants different things from airports..I have had people say to me, I like a proper holiday airport like MAN..

I remember my experience arriving MAN at 1am and leaving the airport at 4 am..I would rather have ease of use, than frills.

[Pain in the R's]

We don't have many shops, nor a flash terminal..

Can't disagree with you there about Blackpool, as there are not many UK airports that has a massive tent as part of the terminal complete with flapping walls.

While I wish Blackpool well the writing seems to be on the wall for the long term. Even the cafe has shut and WH Smiths must have the lowest turnover of any of its UK shops.

[Ernest Lanc's]

While I wish Blackpool well the writing seems to be on the wall for the long term. Even

Well Jet2 don't agree with that...New routes in the worst depression since the 20's.Bodes well for when/if the upturn comes.

WH Smiths must have the lowest turnover of any of its UK shops.

Well the gist of my post was I preferred BLK because although it has few frills, it has has no wear on your legs either.

On that theme..I care not about WH Smith - I fly Jet2 from BLK, I have never flown with WH Smith.

A/C are essential at airports, newsagents: Are not!

[DaveReidUK]

A/C are essential at airports, newsagents: Are not!

Except that the business models of many major international airports are predicated on getting as much revenue, if not more, from retail concessions as from airline user charges.

Incidentally, I flew from LGW South Terminal recently, for the first time in a couple of years, and I was amused to see that the only way to my gate was through the middle of the duty-free shop.

[daz211]

Landing back at LHR yesterday from YVR "Air Canada" and talking to many passengers at baggage reclaim it was clear many passengers were travelling North out of London, We a group of four driving home to North Essex, A family of six getting a minibus to Norwich who were telling me they were sat on the A/C talking to four Business people going to Cambridge to sign a contract with a medical research centre and not forgetting a elderly couple on our car park transfer bus who do this trip a number of times a year travelling back to Harlow.

So in total 16 people (all travelling passed Stansted) that's 100% of the people I spoke to so god knowns how many more were were going North of London.

What really gets my goat is we stopped at Stansted Airport Services for a coffee on the way home it just seems so mad.

[Ernest Lanc's]

DaveReidUK
As you can see below, there is shopping facilities at BLK..I doubt though it generates that much income.



and I was amused to see that the only way to my gate was through the middle of the duty-free shop.

Wish you had not said that..happened to me this year, and I can't think where..OMG, it will drive me daft:oh:.

http://www.blackpoolinternational.com/sites/default/files/airport-shopping.png

[116d]

Except that the business models of many major international airports are predicated on getting as much revenue, if not more, from retail concessions as from airline user charges.

Incidentally, I flew from LGW South Terminal recently, for the first time in a couple of years, and I was amused to see that the only way to my gate was through the middle of the duty-free shop.

Same situation at MAN T1 after its redevelopment a few years ago, where what used to be security is now duty free but you have to walk through it to get to the gates.

As for newsagents, agreed they're not overly essential though useful for passengers to stock up on reading material such as the day's newspaper if you've got a journey of a good few hours ahead of you.

[Donkey497]

Actually, if there is a prime candidate for closure, then surely it should be Heathrow, if nothing else from a safety point of view.

Considering the recent Olympics. the government took the frankly insane step of siting ground to air missile batteries along the Heathrow flight paths with the stated aim of bringing down ANY aircraft thatwas suspected of being under terrorist control.

Where would these hundreds of tonnes of scrap metal and human remains have landed- central London.

So now we have lost the missiles, but the flight paths stay the same, so WHEN something goes carastrophically wrong with a large commercial jet on approach to Heathrow the effect is going to be the same. Every day, we are running the risk of picking jumbo, A330 fragments or worse out of the houses of parliament or some more worthy piece of central London architecture.

It just doesn't make sense to have a major airport sit within city limits, or have its approach & departure paths pass at relatively low level across a city centre.

[Ernest Lanc's]

Donkey497
The government put on a show of force, and the games went though without incident.

We can all say if this, and if that...FACT..The ploy worked.

Heathrow is fine where it is, where you wanna put it?..Miles from anywhere.

The Highlands of Scotland, or Dartmoor for example.

[DaveReidUK]

Interesting analysis here:

http://chiefofficers.net/888333888/cms/index.php/news/content/pdf/19362

of former Transport Secretary Philip Hammond's reprise of the "HeathStanWick" proposal for a high-speed rail link joining the three airports.

The stated LHR/LGW journey time of 15 minutes seems a tad optimistic, especially given the declared objective of combining both landside and airside transfers (presumably suitably segregated) on the same train, and there's no reference to proposed frequency and hence likely waiting time.

Hard to argue with his reference to R3 being a "sticking plaster solution", though.

[Pain in the R's]

In these days of austerity is it time to let go of some of our beloved airports and close them or at least shut down the passenger terminals and just leave them as general aviation airports where they might survive with lower running cost.

I have no agenda against any airport but one has to question why some of them linger on trying to offer passenger services when those passengers could and do use alternative airports.

Prestwick
Teeside
Manston
Blackpool
Coventry
Doncaster
Cambridge
Oxford
Humberside
Lydd
Just reread this post that I created just over two years ago and the many hostile replies. So what has happened to those airports in the meantime? Blackpool gone, Manston gone, Prestwick now state owned with often just one flight a day.

There are a few others there that two year on have lost all their scheduled passenger flights or their charter flights and one or two others that are hanging in there with an empty terminal for much of the day used by less passengers now than when the thread was created.

Wonder which airport will be next to go?

[pug]

A bit smug considering this is a forum for people working within the industry. It certainly wasn't nice to have to tell third party support at BLK that their largest contract was being terminated, resulting in job losses.


Each airport has its own management, ownership and revenue streams, no two on your list of doom are the same. Some may go to the wall, and some may prosper in future, but I find the way in which you have reopened this thread somewhat insensitive..

[Heathrow Harry]

Not smug - he was being realistic and has been proved correct

No-on likes to see people put out of work but we know that you can only stretch an operation so far before the plug has to be pulled

[pug]

Nobody could have realistically predicted the closure of Blackpool two years ago (it came as a shock to everyone at my work), many on the doom list are still buoyant and subsidising the drop in passenger movements by alternative aviation revenue sources. They will, most likely, continue to offer passenger facilities for as long as they fit in the owner/management strategy if each airport, and most on the same list are completely different under completely different ownership.

I read the post to be a rub in the face, a 'told you so', when in fact the job losses are more important issues than an anonymous poster on a forum being 'right'..

[Donkey497]

E-Lancs - Having spent half an hour orbiting over central London at less than 10,000 feet before breakfast this morning waiting for a slot to land, as we were too early arriving from Northern Europe, I again repeat my main point.




Heathrow is simply in the wrong place in the modern era.


To have hundreds of thousands of movements above a highly populated area is simply tempting fate on too regular a basis. Every flight has a risk that it will not end happily. Heathrow has been incredibly fortunate that it hasn't had an inbound fall short of the runway by more than a few yards. One day, it will not be so fortunate. It remains a matter of time.
Where would I relocate Heathrow to?
The highlands? - Don't be foolish, there's no transport links to the main centres of population from the highlands, this area remains unconnected to the rest of the UK. Dartmoor might be a possibility though.......


There are however, significant number of areas to the north and north east of London in particular where there is a proliferation of transport connections to London, Birmingham, Cardiff, Manchester, Sheffield, Liverpool etc. where one or more multiple parallel runway airport(s) could be constructed to serve the whole country where the approach paths and holding/stacking zones would be over largely empty countryside, or at worst sparsely populated areas where the consequent impact of untoward risk occurring is hugely reduced.


There is a legal requirement (in UK as well as EU law) on all employers to reduce the risk of any business process to "As Low As Reasonably Practical". It could be argued by many legal experts that by permitting Heathrow to continue to operate in its present form, both the Government and the owners of Heathrow are wilfully flouting this requirement.
I am not anti-Heathrow, as such, but I feel that it has had its time and should be replaced by something more appropriate to the current needs of the nation. Various politicians are acknowledging the fact that an unhealthy emphasis on development and servicing the extreme south east of the nation has prevailed for far too long for the country as a whole to prosper a planned closure & replacement of Heathrow with a better placed and truly world class airport would only assist in mitigating the damage that has already been wrought.

[LN-KGL]

Donkey497, with Lady T and her government privatising BAA in July 1987 the politicians have abdicated from having real influence over the future of UK's airport infrastructure. The only whiff of influence they have left is to be naysayers (Heathrow will not get a permit for a third runway) and decide tax/duty levels (like the APD rates).

It wonders me that Pain in the .... don't mention any South West or Hampshire airports in his prediction. Plymouth will clearly not the only airport to close in that area.

[Donkey497]

Well LN, even saying no can be an effective way to mould policy. You just have to consistently say no to the right things at the right time and to the right questions.
Recent political pronouncements have given a bit of hope that the madness of trying to cram 95% of the population and productive capacity into a 40 mile radius from nelson's column, so who knows, we may have an outbreak of common sense, but I'm not holding my breath.


On the other hand, I wouldn't put it past our glorious leaders (of whatever party), now that they do not have a direct hand in an airport to identify a need for a new national hub on a greenfield site & auction off the right to build & operate it for "X" number of years - doubtless under a PFI arrangement, so that it ends up costing the taxpayer a fortune, rather than making money for the country........