Heathrow loses market share to London rivals

[LTNman]

Heathrow loses market share to London rivals | Travel Retail Business (http://www.trbusiness.com/regional-news/europe/heathrow-loses-market-share-to-london-rivals/102900)

Seems that Heathrow has now dropped below 30%

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Taken in isolation that sounds bad but it's indicative of the strength of the economy that point to point traffic is booming to London and the other London airports with capacity can help. If you're not connecting then there are better options than LHR depending where you're heading.

Remember it's still possible to lose market share whilst making targets and growing strongly.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

This is exactly why the case for adding a second runway at LGW (subject to cost) makes sense in addressing the capacity shortfall for London-derived demand, as opposed to pitching for increased hub interchange traffic at LHR (with all cost implications conveniently overlooked).

[whitelighter]

It hasnt really ,ost anything in real terms - the market is just bigger and you cant squeeze any more into heathrow, so they had to go somehwere.

If (when?) the market contracts again STN and LTN will lose out, and LHR will remain at the numbers it always has

[crewmeal]

Whilst our politicians 'dither and dally' over making a decision regarding runways more and more traffic will be lost to other airports. I bet the regionals are enjoying this delay and will lure more carriers their way.

No one afaik no one has put forward an argument for an additional runway at BOTH airports.

[AerRyan]

ATC is already a nightmare in London, what would it be like with an extra runway at BOTH airports?!?

[LTNman]

Just a thought but say Heathrow had that extra runway open today. So which airport would be affected the most by the extra Heathrow capacity? I am thinking probably Gatwick is it gets the Heathrow over spill and that LTN and STN would be mainly unaffected.

[T250]

Just a thought but say Heathrow had that extra runway open today. So which airport would be affected the most by the extra Heathrow capacity? I am thinking probably Gatwick is it gets the Heathrow over spill and that LTN and STN would be mainly unaffected.

Not exactly, if you meant in ATC terms.

Majority of LHR inbound and outbound traffic is routed straight in from the west (over Wales and along M4 corridor), this is away from LGW inbounds which usually route inbound over south coast.

The holds to the north west and north east of LHR are usually the busiest at any time of year, these are both close to LTN and STN respectively.

Have a look at flightradar perhaps to get a better idea.

Gatwick expansion would probably have more impact on LCY and neighbouring airports such as Bournemouth and Southampton than directly to LHR.

[roverman]

The article focuses on London yet quotes figures for Heathrow's share of the UK market - not the same thing. This would be valid if all UK passengers used a London airport, which of course they don't. It does not consider the possibility that more of the 23 million pax at MAN or the 10 million at BHX may be people travelling long haul who historically would have gone through LHR but are now using the increasing number of direct services at MAN/BHX or at least routing through another hub. The same applies for Scotland and a little at NCL. A trawl through the CAA statistics in detail would reveal whether this assertion is correct, but it must be to some extent otherwise the new regional long haul would not be viable. If true, it supports those who question the need for a single UK hub in the south-east of England. We keep hearing that Heathrow is full but has managed to add 10 million pax per annum over the last 5 years. Not bad.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

ATC is already a nightmare in London, what would it be like with an extra runway at BOTH airports?!?
In what sense is ATC a "nightmare"? Holding is actually down as algorithms get smarter (when they work :) )
They're clever people tasked with traffic complex management, HAL haven't taken the proposal this far without discussing the impact with NATS. A number of models have already been built and run.
If true, it supports those who question the need for a single UK hub in the south-east of England
It's not a need for a single hub, it's a consequence of London being an enormous P2P market coupled with empire routes connecting East and West with BOAC/BEA coming together creating not only a dominant long haul carrier but a market snobbery that looks down at LGW and STN for certain markets.
UK regional has been open to the world for years, however even optimistic upper end expansion at MAN/BHX/GLA/EDI/NCL isn't lilkely to generate the volume of inbound trade a third LHR runway offers.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

expansion at MAN/BHX/GLA/EDI/NCL isn't lilkely to generate the volume of inbound trade a third LHR runway offers.

But the extraordinary cost of enabling LHR to generate this differential volume of additional inbound trade (just how large is this differential, anyway?) needs to be factored in. LHR R3 represents a vast expenditure in return for a surprisingly limited boost in capacity. Expansion at LGW to meet growth in indigenous SE demand combined with more efficient use of existing regional airport assets provides the best solution for UKplc. LHR R3 costs are outlandish. It doesn't make sense for a household to spend an extra £1000 if the return (differential additional business) is one extra pint of milk. We should not buy a small boost in market share without consideration for cost. Buying extra business for LHR comes with a prohibitive price-tag.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Quite right, let's not bother then. Great news for KLM, Air France and Lufthansa and for their emplyment growth.
How is an additonal runway at a two runway airport "surprisingly limited"? There's a whole new terminal complex planned as well. Opponents love to overstate the problems, it's LHR or not at all I am afraid, even Cameron's commmision says so.
combined with more efficient use of existing regional airport assetsYou speak sometimes like we live in a planned economy. In reality we have BFS and BHD at war, LPL and LBA trying to fend off MAN's ambitions and GLA and EDI knocking lumps out of each other. Now all very good in some ways but the lack of joined up strategy is troubling. The airlines LHR would bring in will never bring similar levels of traffic via the regions, no realistic analysis suggests they could.

Also, we're not going to market for a pint of milk. The analogy isn't realistic here.

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

If heathrow want it, they must pay for it, and that which is necessary to support it.

[Bagso]

I thought at the start of this thread the poster bemoaned increases at "OTHER" London airports not exactly loss of market share to Paris Frankfurt Amsterdam?

[anothertyke]

No, the AC did not say it's Heathrow or bust. It said Heathrow was the better option but that if LHR was not possible then LGW would be worth doing.

If the world economy holds up, we stay in the EU and its the business as usual scenario and IF it's LHR now, we will probably need LGW2 by the 2040s. That's quite a few ifs though.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Quite right, let's not bother then

Is the correct answer! I realise that your comment is intended 'tongue-in-cheek' but gross misallocation of investment capital is not good business.

Great news for KLM, Air France and Lufthansa and for their emplyment growth.

There does appear to be a mindset amongst advocates of LHR expansion that major continental airports such as AMS, FRA and CDG win business only because LHR is capacity-constrained. This is an extraordinarily arrogant premise when you think it through. Just take a close look at those cities. Note the population, depth of industry, visitor attractions and prosperity indigenous to their surrounding hinterlands. They're not located in the SE-corner of an island either. These airports win business on merit. They offer a highly-attractive proposition to carriers in their own right.

Note also that the notion that lucrative long-haul services will be lost to London if LHR R3 does not proceed is pure myth. If the proposed new route is sufficiently lucrative, another short-haul service will fall off the edge to make way. We have seen yet more recent examples of this at LHR. Operators are keen to cash-in on the slots attached to financially-weak routes. It is the marginal business which is lost to LHR, not the high-end stuff.

Another widely-peddled myth is the notion that the UK will fail to win its share of business contracts if LHR R3 is not built. What poppycock. If there is lucrative business to be won executives will turn up to bid for it. Even if they have to change planes in DXB, IST or ATL on the way (what a hardship!).

How is an additonal runway at a two runway airport "surprisingly limited"?

Glad you asked. But it may help if we edit the question slightly: 'How is an additional runway costing £18.5Bn (conservatively) plus £10Bn-ish in support works at a two runway airport "surprisingly limited"?

The answer can be found in the Arnavutkoy district of Istanbul where £9Bn buys a brand new airport with terminal capacity for 90 million pax per annum, THREE runways and all the structures necessary for operational support. Of course, you will point out that London is a much higher-cost city than Istanbul, so this comparison is tainted. So let's consider another equally high-cost city. How about New York? There a major rebuild of LaGuardia Airport comes in at around USD 4Bn. That is why LHR's anticipated capacity-hike in return for the sums proposed is "surprisingly limited". 260,000 additional runway slots is the payback for the LHR R3 mega-money ... and they are already capable upto 480,000 movements anyway. Or alot more if they relax archaic night-flying bans imposed on quiet, modern types.

Opponents love to overstate the problems,

From my perspective, supporters love to gloss-over the problems.

You speak sometimes like we live in a planned economy

I have never advocated a planned economy and have made many postings on this forum which support healthy competition amongst UK airports. However, a degree of central planning by the state is a fact of life. This comes partly in the form of planned distribution of state funding for infrastructure initiatives. Radical reform is urgently required in this area, as current formulas have overwhelmingly favoured London and the SE. Overdue investment in improving connectivity within the regions will enhance the proposition regional airports can offer to operators in pursuit of new business. And investment in the regions creates jobs too ... far more so than in London for the same level of investment (regional labour is cheaper). Rebalancing the economy is a healthy objective.

The airlines LHR would bring in will never bring similar levels of traffic via the regions

Airlines which deliver a high-value proposition to London will be accommodated without problem. It is frequencies on marginal short-haul routes which will make way in reality. Just as it has always been.

Also, we're not going to market for a pint of milk. The analogy isn't realistic here.

The analogy in which one massively overpays for an asset is supremely applicable to LHR R3.

[Max Angle]

In what sense is ATC a "nightmare"? You are joking aren't you.

[DaveReidUK]

ATC is already a nightmare in London, what would it be like with an extra runway at BOTH airports?!?

Who is suggesting that scenario?

[AerRyan]

Who is suggesting that scenario?

Smh.............😂

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

I thought at the start of this thread the poster bemoaned increases at "OTHER" London airports not exactly loss of market share to Paris Frankfurt Amsterdam? Depends what share and of what market.

As you well know the bleed to AMS/CDG/ZRH/DXB/DOH/AUH is not short haul low cost one :) The risk of that loss is long haul connectivity, almost none of which is at the other London airports for reasons gone over ad nauseum.
Great local news like Cathay adding LGW or Emirates going all A388 is not driving a proper strategic benefit in that area. This was exactly why the Airports Commisions saw LHR as the only viable growth area in that market sector.
Choosing LGW, a second choice if you will, revisits the mistakes of the 70s and 80s with some airlines ending up at LGW only because they can't get into LHR. As that puts them at a competitive disadvantage against their competitors at LHR, the business case means the asset, the aircraft can be deployed via a Euro hub where their partners are stronger and offer support and feed, all of which LGW lacks. BA for example, are not looking to promote LGW as a hub, mainly because they cannot make it pay on that model.
Look at China Southern's AMS presence versus their LHR one. Garuda have become the latest airline in those markets to walk away from LGW, following Vietnam.

Different airports have different places in the wider startegy of the business.

[good egg]

I am surprised when I hear about this airport/that airport backing LHR expansion for reasons of worldwide connectivity...when they already serve all of the major European hubs.
The dithering by successive UK governments seems to be driving demand at "regional" and other London airports, particularly, for short-haul euro-hubs....maybe that's not such a terrible thing. Whether you travel via LHR or any other hub to travel long-haul doesn't really make that much difference as long as codeshares are in place? Could even be seen as a good thing - particularly for other airports?

[Trash 'n' Navs]

No, not a problem unless you prefer to keep the airport workers jobs at LHR.