Outside Influences

[Coathanger16]

The headline point is that LHR have obtained government support for a proposal they said was deliverable. They are now seeking to move the goalposts and tacitly admit the scheme the government support is not deliverable.

The scheme the government supports? As far as I'm aware no scheme has been given the go ahead, and as such the designs for that scheme are very much in a state of evolution. In the new year LHR will be consulting on what the expansion should look like. At this stage all government has said is their preferred option is LHR - not that it is necessarily deliverable, that's what all the consultations and committee meetings are for. As such, LHR haven't moved the goalposts, just provided more information to the government for them to make a decision based off.

The airport commission estimated £800,000. This seems too low, but whichever way you slice and dice it LGW's surface access is several billion cheaper to taxpayers, which is clearly a positive.

Cheaper doesn't necessarily mean that its deliverable. Gatwick has 1 railway line to it and 1 motorway. LHR has 3 rail/tube with 2 more proposed and 2 motorways nearby, and even then getting to the airport is difficult enough. Try making Gatwick as big as Heathrow now and will 1 railway that is already full, plus a motorway that is very busy now be enough. If anything I'd say an expanded Gatwick needs more investment in it than an expanded Heathrow.

As you know, the consultation has been reopened because LGW now offers the best long term economic benefits to the UK.

Also, LGW can be phased to facilitate financing the project. The current LHR scheme cannot (although they now seem to be changing their position on that and we wait to see what their proposal is).

Where exactly has this report come from that says expanding Gatwick is now better for the UK economy than expanding Heathrow. And what assumptions is it based on. Whilst there has been tremendous growth in long haul (and to a lesser extent short haul) at Gatwick in recent years, that is not sustainable and I rather think this latest report is based upon Gatwick continuing to grow at that rate. Of course I can't be certain on that because no information of substance has been released - only headline figures.

This 'phasing' thing has me completely bemused! How can both Gatwick & Heathrow Hub phase their plans but Heathrow's own cannot be phased. As far as I know, all 3 schemes will require a new runway to be built and new terminal infrastructure, so not sure why Heathrow's cannot be phased. Perhaps its just that before LHR wanted to do all of their expansion in one so as do avoid the frustration to passengers and locals of ongoing construction for the next few decades.

Not publicly, but there is a reason the airport commission said one runway only, and that is because there is not enoughfinance and latent demand to build two.

Well it seems everyone these days is saying the airports commission got something wrong so why not add that in as well? Heathrow and Gatwick are practically full now. Luton soon will be. By the mid 2020's there won't be much capacity left at Stansted. Basically most London airports will be operating at or above 80%, with the two biggest being practically full. I think the bigger issue with approving both now would come from Stansted. They were ruled out from the airports commission and they've largely accepted that as the Commission said another runway would likely be needed post 2030/40, and that Stansted would be a possible contender.

Quite simply, no matter how many airlines want to fly from LHR, it is economically better for the U.K. to expand LGW (unless the airlines want to pay for it, which they don't).

Better economically how? By going against the established model for connecting the UK to countries around the world and putting our faith in 1 foreign airline expanding at Gatwick using a model that so far hasn't worked for any airline?

Try and find an airline that doesn't support expanding Heathrow. On the other hand go to Gatwick where their 2 biggest airlines (easyJet and BA) don't support expansion there and actually support expansion at Heathrow.

 

[Dobbo]

The scheme the government supports? As far as I'm aware no scheme has been given the go ahead, and as such the designs for that scheme are very much in a state of evolution. In the new year LHR will be consulting on what the expansion should look like. At this stage all government has said is their preferred option is LHR - not that it is necessarily deliverable, that's what all the consultations and committee meetings are for. As such, LHR haven't moved the goalposts, just provided more information to the government for them to make a decision based off.

Yes, the government supports the LHR north west runway scheme. This is well known and widely reported and underpinns the current consultation. I find it hard to believe you didn't know this.

As for the latter points, LHR asserted that the north west runway scheme was deliverable, in full, in one phase, without increasing airline charges. On this basis the Secretary of State announced he was minded to support this scheme in October 2016.

LHR have now admitted that it may be deliverable in phases, with increased charges. That is obviously moving the goalposts (because the additional information undermines what they have previously stated).

They have either not done their homework or, more likely, have concealed the reality of their scheme's position until it would be too politically embarrassing for the government to perform a U turn.

Cheaper doesn't necessarily mean that its deliverable. Gatwick has 1 railway line to it and 1 motorway. LHR has 3 rail/tube with 2 more proposed and 2 motorways nearby, and even then getting to the airport is difficult enough. Try making Gatwick as big as Heathrow now and will 1 railway that is already full, plus a motorway that is very busy now be enough. If anything I'd say an expanded Gatwick needs more investment in it than an expanded Heathrow.

Your view (LGW requiring more surface access spend than LHR) is in direct contradiction with every study and your own opinion in your previous post.

It is not credible.

Where exactly has this report come from that says expanding Gatwick is now better for the UK economy than expanding Heathrow. And what assumptions is it based on. Whilst there has been tremendous growth in long haul (and to a lesser extent short haul) at Gatwick in recent years, that is not sustainable and I rather think this latest report is based upon Gatwick continuing to grow at that rate. Of course I can't be certain on that because no information of substance has been released - only headline figures.

The report is from the DfT. you'll find it via google. The gist is that by 2060, LGW delivers more economic benefit to the U.K. than either LHR scheme.

LHR have not criticised the report because they were trumpeting its findings back in 2014 when it said LHR had the stronger economic case.

We discussed this a few weeks ago so this cannot have come as a surprise.

This 'phasing' thing has me completely bemused! How can both Gatwick & Heathrow Hub phase their plans but Heathrow's own cannot be phased. As far as I know, all 3 schemes will require a new runway to be built and new terminal infrastructure, so not sure why Heathrow's cannot be phased. Perhaps its just that before LHR wanted to do all of their expansion in one so as do avoid the frustration to passengers and locals of ongoing construction for the next few decades.

I agree, it's odd that the LHR north west runway scheme cannot be phased. it sounds like LHR are trying to come up with a plan to phase it, but are being criticised (by IAG amongst others) for essentially burying the terminal costs into the ongoing renovation project.

Well it seems everyone these days is saying the airports commission got something wrong so why not add that in as well? Heathrow and Gatwick are practically full now. Luton soon will be. By the mid 2020's there won't be much capacity left at Stansted. Basically most London airports will be operating at or above 80%, with the two biggest being practically full. I think the bigger issue with approving both now would come from Stansted. They were ruled out from the airports commission and they've largely accepted that as the Commission said another runway would likely be needed post 2030/40, and that Stansted would be a possible contender.

Legal challenge to any decision at this point seems inevitable. I don't see how it can be resolved without a fundamental reset.

Better economically how? By going against the established model for connecting the UK to countries around the world and putting our faith in 1 foreign airline expanding at Gatwick using a model that so far hasn't worked for any airline?

Better using the same methodology that previously presented LHR as the stronger case. Quite frankly, LHR's costs are killing the project.

Try and find an airline that doesn't support expanding Heathrow. On the other hand go to Gatwick where their 2 biggest airlines (easyJet and BA) don't support expansion there and actually support expansion at Heathrow.

BA, LHR's largest customer, don't support expansion. I can't believe you don't know this as it is widely known and reported.

 

[Coathanger16]

Could you honestly be any more patronizing? "I can't believe you don't know xyz"...

Yes, the government supports the LHR north west runway scheme. This is well known and widely reported and underpinns the current consultation. I find it hard to believe you didn't know this.

Yes the government 'support' it but no decision has been made yet - parliament is yet to vote on it. I find it hard to believe you don't know this.

Your view (LGW requiring more surface access spend than LHR) is in direct contradiction with every study and your own opinion in your previous post.

It is not credible.

What contradiction exactly? The only one I can fathom that you're alluding to is my saying I support both LGW (& LHR) expanding whilst stating LGW surface access will cost more.

The report is from the DfT. you'll find it via google. The gist is that by 2060, LGW delivers more economic benefit to the U.K. than either LHR scheme.

LHR have not criticised the report because they were trumpeting its findings back in 2014 when it said LHR had the stronger economic case.

We discussed this a few weeks ago so this cannot have come as a surprise.

Having had a look at it now, the relevant section merely summaries why each of the economic benefits etc is different than before. The explanation we are given now is essentially "LGW is now predicted to have a slightly higher economic benefit than LHR" - no reason given.

One point to note is that it does mention how the runways are operated will have an effect on the economic benefits (mixed vs segregated). As far as I know LHR plans to operate 1 mixed plus 1 each of T/O and LDG with a 6.5hr ban on night flights, whilst LGW intend to operate both runways in mixed mode ops 24/7. The latter would clearly offer a larger increase in flights - both schemes are essentially adding 1 new runway to be operated in mixed mode ops, though LGW's would be used 24/7 and LHR's wouldn't. Do the residents near LGW not matter as much as those near LHR? Level the playing field and see if LGW still comes out on top.

Even then, still no information on how the figures were calcuated.

Yes I am aware that we discussed it before, but as nobody could answer these points then I raised it again.

Legal challenge to any decision at this point seems inevitable. I don't see how it can be resolved without a fundamental reset.

I think even if the government had gone for LGW there would have been some kind of legal challenge.

Reset - great idea. Delay the whole process for another 5 years, make the situation worse, and allow our competitors (and MAN no doubt) to take advantage of our indecision.

Better using the same methodology that previously presented LHR as the stronger case. Quite frankly, LHR's costs are killing the project.

Hence why they are trying to find ways to bring down the cost - yet are still ridiculed for doing so.

BA, LHR's largest customer, don't support expansion. I can't believe you don't know this as it is widely known and reported.

Yes BA, LHR's largest customer, does support expansion. Whilst the headlines often state IAG, Willie Walsh, BA or whoever oppose LHR expansion, if you actually bothered to read the article for yourself you'd find quotes from IAG, WW & BA stating they support expansion but not at the current cost. Again hence why LHR have been in discussions with airlines about how to bring the costs down. Plans which they will publish in the New Year. We shall see then what BA say about it.

View attachment 7031

Sounds to me like IAG want LHR to expand and that there are proposals out there which deliver it at a cost that is acceptable to IAG. I can't believe that you had such a narrow view through which you only look at Heathrow. I can't help but wonder if your hostility to LHR expansion (which was evident even when LHR's benefits were greater) is down to the belief that LHR expansion will somehow threaten MAN's growth and that its another expensive scheme that the government backs in the SE and not the North.

I shall leave this discussion there as it is getting nowhere, other member are likely getting fed up with us and it is turning me into a vile human. So much for the Christmas spirit eh?

 

[Aceshigh]

In some resists LHR has put a lot of passengers off. But should in theory be tge default airport if choice fir long haul ex Manchester Glasgow Edinburgh etc but as was seen with Virgin Red there was no demand. BA shuttles have diminished and as recently as last week BA LBA was slashed.

The aspiration of Mr Pakey us admirable but you need tge right aircraft at tge right frequency at the right fare.

2 even 3 a day from some regionals won't work. It has to be more , BUT then fares have to be reasons. It's a conflict that can't be squared.

 

[Dobbo]

Could you honestly be any more patronizing? "I can't believe you don't know xyz"...

You generally come across as a bright guy, but certain points you made were obviously wrong.

Yes the government 'support' it but no decision has been made yet - parliament is yet to vote on it. I find it hard to believe you don't know this.

You staid "the scheme the government supports?". You are now trying to conflate (or don't know the difference between) government support (which is from the Secretary of State) with a vote by parliament (which is by all MPs of all parties). I'll leave this point there as nothing further needs to be said.

What contradiction exactly? The only one I can fathom that you're alluding to is my saying I support both LGW (& LHR) expanding whilst stating LGW surface access will cost more.

Quote from your post at 8.58pm yesterday evening (my emphasis):

"A new runway at LGW is costed at ~£9bn, whilst surface access has been costed at anywhere between £5bn to £10bn. These issues are continuously overlooked as the numbers are higher at LHR."

Despite this you went on to say at 10:41pm (in the context of surface access):

"If anything I'd say an expanded Gatwick needs more investment in it than an expanded Heathrow."

Having had a look at it now, the relevant section merely summaries why each of the economic benefits etc is different than before. The explanation we are given now is essentially "LGW is now predicted to have a slightly higher economic benefit than LHR" - no reason given.

I'm sure you'll find the reason! I'm pretty sure it's because the initial data set was wrong (I'm not 100% sure of that).

One point to note is that it does mention how the runways are operated will have an effect on the economic benefits (mixed vs segregated). As far as I know LHR plans to operate 1 mixed plus 1 each of T/O and LDG with a 6.5hr ban on night flights, whilst LGW intend to operate both runways in mixed mode ops 24/7. The latter would clearly offer a larger increase in flights - both schemes are essentially adding 1 new runway to be operated in mixed mode ops, though LGW's would be used 24/7 and LHR's wouldn't. Do the residents near LGW not matter as much as those near LHR? Level the playing field and see if LGW still comes out on top.

One of the advantages LGW has it that it does not require take off or landing over central London as LHR does. In this respect the playing field cannot be levelled because LHR is in a poor location for this issue.

One of the current defects in LHRs scheme is that there is no safety audit of the triple runway operation you have described.

Even then, still no information on how the figures were calcuated.

If you don't accept the report or you think it's flawed that's fine. I suspect LHR are on it, but as said before this would undermine the previous economic case which favoured LHR and would inevitably be challenged.

Yes I am aware that we discussed it before, but as nobody could answer these points then I raised it again.

As I say, if you don't accept the report...

I think even if the government had gone for LGW there would have been some kind of legal challenge.

100% agree.

Reset - great idea. Delay the whole process for another 5 years, make the situation worse, and allow our competitors (and MAN no doubt) to take advantage of our indecision.

It's either that or face the inevitable legal block.

As for MAN, it will get on fine in an expanded or not expanded LHR/LGW selcenario. MAN competes with the likes of DUS, BRU, VIE, BCN, DUB for new services. It's comparator is not LHR (which competes with AMS, CDG etc)

Hence why they are trying to find ways to bring down the cost - yet are still ridiculed for doing so.

No complaint from me. They just need to be honest about what is and is not deliverable, in what phases and be realistic with what they are trying to get the country to sign up for. LHR has so many advantages that it fritters away by being proliferate with money.

Yes BA, LHR's largest customer, does support expansion. Whilst the headlines often state IAG, Willie Walsh, BA or whoever oppose LHR expansion, if you actually bothered to read the article for yourself you'd find quotes from IAG, WW & BA stating they support expansion but not at the current cost. Again hence why LHR have been in discussions with airlines about how to bring the costs down. Plans which they will publish in the New Year. We shall see then what BA say about it.

View attachment 7031

Sounds to me like IAG want LHR to expand and that there are proposals out there which deliver it at a cost that is acceptable to IAG. I can't believe that you had such a narrow view through which you only look at Heathrow. I can't help but wonder if your hostility to LHR expansion (which was evident even when LHR's benefits were greater) is down to the belief that LHR expansion will somehow threaten MAN's growth and that its another expensive scheme that the government backs in the SE and not the North.

You are trying to obfuscate. Anyone can find quotes purportedly supporting an argument, it takes an analytical view to assess the strength of that supporting information. In this case, the plan you have cited (Arora) is not on the table and is not subject to consultation.

For this Arora scheme to see the light of day the reset button would have to be pressed and the process started again. You have set out your opposition to that above.

I'm not opposed in principle to LHR expansion. I object to the cost which the UK taxpayer will at best underwrite and will inevitably pick up the tab for an overwhelming amount of surface access. As stated at length, MAN is fine in either scenario (and you raised the point, not me).

I shall leave this discussion there as it is getting nowhere, other member are likely getting fed up with us and it is turning me into a vile human. So much for the Christmas spirit eh?

Like I said at the outset, you have adopted a fundamentally bad argument, which is being exposed, and that is why you wish to leave the discussion.

I don't think it's turning you into a bad human - you are focusing on the issues (which in my view is wrong and/or a bad argument) and have not made it personal. No complaints from me!

 

[Coathanger16]

Quote from your post at 8.58pm yesterday evening (my emphasis):

"A new runway at LGW is costed at ~£9bn, whilst surface access has been costed at anywhere between £5bn to £10bn. These issues are continuously overlooked as the numbers are higher at LHR."

Despite this you went on to say at 10:41pm (in the context of surface access):

"If anything I'd say an expanded Gatwick needs more investment in it than an expanded Heathrow."

I was merely stating that the media, government, reports, etc state LHR as being more expensive, not that I believed it to be.

I'm sure you'll find the reason! I'm pretty sure it's because the initial data set was wrong (I'm not 100% sure of that).

Even if the original data set was wrong, what are these latest figures based on? Norwegian continuing to expand at its present rate? That's unlikely in the long term. Airlines like Cathay and China Airlines continuing to launch LGW routes? Yes to a point, but so far the only long haul routes from Gatwick have been to major destinations already well covered from LHR. Once they're all served, long haul growth at Gatwick will plateau. With the exception of holiday destinations (which export money from the UK), Heathrow will be more likely to secure routes to new long haul markets with higher frequencies than Gatwick as its a hub. That opens it up to more potential passengers. Europe's pretty well covered from both airports so expansion would likely only bring additional frequencies which are as likely at each airport. So the difference between each expansion is how many long haul routes each can acquire. For reasons I've already highlighted, LHR will be able to gain more, so how on earth can the economic benefits of Gatwick be greater. The only way I can see Gatwick having a greater benefit is if you add in the costs of the negatives (noise, air quality, etc) to each scheme. Not 100% sure if that's what these figures are indicating.

You are trying to obfuscate. Anyone can find quotes purportedly supporting an argument, it takes an analytical view to assess the strength of that supporting information. In this case, the plan you have cited (Arora) is not on the table and is not subject to consultation.

For this Arora scheme to see the light of day the reset button would have to be pressed and the process started again. You have set out your opposition to that above.

That was just one such example. Over the past 5 years I have seen numerous quotes by airline bosses, including BA, stating they support expansion at LHR on the condition that costs are reasonable. Airlines have made it abundantly clear that they think the current plan isn't reasonably priced and as such LHR is looking at ways to reduce that cost. Nowhere have I seen airlines say they are outright against LHR expansion. Compare what Willie Walsh has said about LHR expansion over the years to what he has said about LGW expansion. For the latter its basically "there's no business case nor demand for it".

As for the Arora proposal there are 2 plans. One moves the runway to the east to avoid building over the M25 and this would save the most amount of money. That would would yes likely require a reset back to where we were in October 2016 if not earlier. The other plan keeps the runway where it is but reduces the land take of HAL's own plan by building terminal infrastructure closer to the current site (on land to the west of T5). I'm not sure why this latter plan would need a reset as its not a major change to the plan.

Like I said at the outset, you have adopted a fundamentally bad argument, which is being exposed, and that is why you wish to leave the discussion.

Don't attempt to tell my why I do what I do. I tried to leave the discussion as I realized this is a public forum and this discussion was essentially between just the two of us. With the exception of the occasional input from @Jerry nobody else has taken part, and as we clearly disagree I saw no point in continuing further.

Can we now leave it there please.

Have a nice day

 

[Coathanger16]

As stated at length, MAN is fine in either scenario (and you raised the point, not me).

My reason for bringing MAN into it was that in the little over a year that I've been a member of this site, I've noticed the most vocal opponents of LHR expansion have also happened to be the most vocal proponents of MAN expansion. Relatively speaking, members that gravitate towards other airports on the site don't seem to mind one way or the other if LHR expands. Was just trying to address whether or not that was a coincidence?

 

[Dobbo]

I was merely stating that the media, government, reports, etc state LHR as being more expensive, not that I believed it to be.

You'd be in a large minority of your view is that LGW surface access is more expensive that LHR (unless you are looking at 2/3 new runways at LGW!)

Even if the original data set was wrong, what are these latest figures based on? Norwegian continuing to expand at its present rate? That's unlikely in the long term. Airlines like Cathay and China Airlines continuing to launch LGW routes? Yes to a point, but so far the only long haul routes from Gatwick have been to major destinations already well covered from LHR. Once they're all served, long haul growth at Gatwick will plateau. With the exception of holiday destinations (which export money from the UK), Heathrow will be more likely to secure routes to new long haul markets with higher frequencies than Gatwick as its a hub. That opens it up to more potential passengers. Europe's pretty well covered from both airports so expansion would likely only bring additional frequencies which are as likely at each airport. So the difference between each expansion is how many long haul routes each can acquire. For reasons I've already highlighted, LHR will be able to gain more, so how on earth can the economic benefits of Gatwick be greater. The only way I can see Gatwick having a greater benefit is if you add in the costs of the negatives (noise, air quality, etc) to each scheme. Not 100% sure if that's what these figures are indicating.

The market trend is towards long haul low cost. That means airport cost being kept to a minimum, which means cheaper infrastructure.

I think casual observers place a greater emphasis/value on long haul connectivity whereas the reality is that the businessman or businesswoman from Europe is likely to have at least equal value to their equivalent from Asia or North America.

That was just one such example. Over the past 5 years I have seen numerous quotes by airline bosses, including BA, stating they support expansion at LHR on the condition that costs are reasonable. Airlines have made it abundantly clear that they think the current plan isn't reasonably priced and as such LHR is looking at ways to reduce that cost. Nowhere have I seen airlines say they are outright against LHR expansion. Compare what Willie Walsh has said about LHR expansion over the years to what he has said about LGW expansion. For the latter its basically "there's no business case nor demand for it".

I agree with all of this, but the fundamental problem is that LHR has not yet come up with a proposal that is deliverable, affordable, not too expensive for the taxpayer, and does not offend environmental or competition legislation.

If it can demonstrate those factors, expanding LHR is a no brainier, but they keep getting it wrong.

As for the Arora proposal there are 2 plans. One moves the runway to the east to avoid building over the M25 and this would save the most amount of money. That would would yes likely require a reset back to where we were in October 2016 if not earlier. The other plan keeps the runway where it is but reduces the land take of HAL's own plan by building terminal infrastructure closer to the current site (on land to the west of T5). I'm not sure why this latter plan would need a reset as its not a major change to the plan.

The three schemes in the table are:

1 - LHR north west runway, promoted by Heathrow Holdings (the airport's scheme).

2 - LGW runway 2, promoted by LGW (the airports scheme).

3 - LHR extended runway, promoted by Heathrow Hub Limited (not the airports scheme).

The Secretary of State is minded to support option 1. However, the basis upon which that was supported has been eroded and LHR have since moved the goalposts upon which the Secretary of State provided his support (i.e. Not deliverable or affordable, too high cost to taxpayer, and offends environmental and competition regs).

It is expected that parliament will vote in this at some point (lord knows when, the can keeps getting kicked down the road). Airlines generally do not support option 1 because it is to expensive, would increase charges and these are passed to passengers as higher prices.

Any other scheme (including that favoured by BA) is not on the table, and would likely require a reset of the process. Perhaps it can be introduced late in the day, but I doubt that would be acceptable without the same scrutiny as the above schemes (essentially a reset of the process).

Quite frankly it's astonishing LHR cannot come up with a credible scheme.

Don't attempt to tell my why I do what I do. I tried to leave the discussion as I realized this is a public forum and this discussion was essentially between just the two of us. With the exception of the occasional input from @Jerry nobody else has taken part, and as we clearly disagree I saw no point in continuing further.

Can we now leave it there please.

Have a nice day

Well, I think it's obvious why you want to leave it there, so happy to do so. It's a debate, so we can agree to disagree.

 

[Aceshigh]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/21/travel/what-to-do-36-hours-in-manchester-england.html


So is Manchester the London of The North"

No

But London maybe the Manchester of the South!

Excellent article in the NYTimes. This is about the third article in the last 12 months across the US media.

 

[rollo]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/21/travel/what-to-do-36-hours-in-manchester-england.html


So is Manchester the London of The North"

No

But London maybe the Manchester of the South!

Excellent article in the NYTimes. This is about the third article in the last 12 months across the US media.

Stuck in the middle with you?

Iol

 

[David_itl]

The question of getting a stable footing for the Northern Powerhouse to enable a continuation of this has to be a "must" over the course of the next 3 to 5 years so that the combined effects of the Brexit trade deal, global trade deals and the completion of the full T2 development can coincide. May be we could get further devolution/increased northern cooperation to provide a unified voice in getting objectives sorted.

"Greater Manchester’s economic growth has outstripped all its rivals - including London - since the Northern Powerhouse was launched. The area’s productivity rose by 6.8 per cent between 2014 and 2016. That compares with growth of just 4.6 per cent in Greater London."

"High-tech and media industries have made the biggest economic leap forward in Greater Manchester over the past two years."

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...ter-manchester-enjoys-economic-boost-14072141

 

[Dobbo]

It's almost as though they want to artificially boost numbers on regional flights for some reason...

https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2018/01/02/heathrow-cuts-domestic-airport-charges/

 

[Jerry]

It's almost as though they want to artificially boost numbers on regional flights for some reason...

https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2018/01/02/heathrow-cuts-domestic-airport-charges/

Or make it more attractive for Flybe and Easyjet to launch new routes?

 

[Dobbo]

Or make it more attractive for Flybe and Easyjet to launch new routes?

Yes, but why do you think they are doing that now when they haven't done so for the last however many years?

 

[Silvercity]

Yes, but why do you think they are doing that now when they haven't done so for the last however many years?

Feels a bit disingenuous to me.

 

[Jerry]

Yes, but why do you think they are doing that now when they haven't done so for the last however many years?

Because in a couple of years time they'll have a nice shiny new runway and terminal and lots of new slots to fill. Attracting airlines like Flybe and Easyjet now to operate new domestic routes or frequencies and who will also be able to in the future launch new routes and frequencies to Europe as well is just doing the groundwork in preparation for that time.
If i remember correctly the remedial slots were for 12 daily slot pairs and Flybe are only using 7? 4 daily GLA-LHR with Easyjet maybe on the way?

 

[Dobbo]

Because in a couple of years time they'll have a nice shiny new runway and terminal and lots of new slots to fill. Attracting airlines like Flybe and Easyjet now to operate new domestic routes or frequencies and who will also be able to in the future launch new routes and frequencies to Europe as well is just doing the groundwork in preparation for that time.
If i remember correctly the remedial slots were for 12 daily slot pairs and Flybe are only using 7? 4 daily GLA-LHR with Easyjet maybe on the way?

That's one way of looking at it Jerry, although I think you'd acknowledge that a new runway in a couple of years is optimistic even for LHR!!!

My take is that it reflects LHR's belated realisation that they are losing (amongst others) the regional connectivity argument and they want to try and create something (say with Flybe) to point to as "evidence" they can connect LHR to some of the smaller regional airports.

 

[Silvercity]

That's one way of looking at it Jerry, although I think you'd acknowledge that a new runway in a couple of years is optimistic even for LHR!!!

My take is that it reflects LHR's belated realisation that they are losing (amongst others) the regional connectivity argument and they want to try and create something (say with Flybe) to point to as "evidence" they can connect LHR to some of the smaller regional airports.

I remember a while back listening to a radio article with some bigwig on. He had utter amazement that those in the regions might actually look to transfer at a European hub or even the Middle East over transferring at Heathrow !....Err hello, that been going on for years. It did highlight the London bubble, of not knowing what's happening beyond the M25. Heathrow has lost plenty of domestic routes over the years, Liverpool (and probably Leeds again) being the local obvious ones, but there are plenty more. How bothered was LHR then ?

 

[Land23R]

Two reasons it seems to me, both of which have been mentioned:
1. Evidence that LHR is losing domestic transfer pax.
2. To maintain / gain support for its treasured R3 by promoting the importance of domestic routes and convincing airlines and smaller UK airports that more routes can be viable.

I don't think the political nous of HAL should be under-estimated. By coming up with a scheme to save money and arrive at a lower cost could well produce a more favourable response than if that lower cost had been stated at the onset.

 

[Aceshigh]

I would be suprised if this made any difference whatsoever.

ALL the stars have to be aligned to join the dots ( not just cost), and that simply isnt happening in a meaningful way. Infact if the LBA example is anything to go by the model connecting LHR is becoming even more frayed.

Ideally domestic flights need to connect to a long haul network I know that sounds obvious but P2p has long since gone. So who is the obvious suitor, it has to be BA ?

But they simply don't have the right size aircraft operating at the right frequency or the optimum capacity to make it viable.
3x a320 to LBA proved that.
To little frequency.
To large an aircraft.

Let's suppose RW3 appears, would BA see this as an golden opportunity and go out and buy 25 Embraers on the whim of those who have suggested Heathrow needs to connect to the region ? Unlikey.

Are they seriously going to go up against the likes of Emirates , Qatar , Etihad at Manchester , Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle ?

There isn't a cat in hells chance of them doing that.

That leaves the likes of Teeside Humberside etc where they would have to go head to head with KLM who are already entrenched.

Next in the queue would be Virgin and we saw how well.

There has to be flexibility and certainty of operation. In nearly all cases these airports ARE ALREADY connected to a hub. The ones which don't have any link may need to look at demand. Does it even exist?

Its all very well HAL and indeed others banging on about connectivity to the regions...... it's not their money.

Most observers pushing this line seem to be prodding "from the back", not leading from the front.