Outside Influences

[Aceshigh]

Ike Thomas Cooks daily Seattle services out of Heathtow saw that launch MAN services? Cathay weren't number 1 for MAN-hub-HKG but Emirates was. As for routes, MAN has comfortably more than LHR.

True about 204 I believe !

 

[Aceshigh]

Ike Thomas Cooks daily Seattle services out of Heathtow saw that launch MAN services? Cathay weren't number 1 for MAN-hub-HKG but Emirates was. As for routes, MAN has comfortably more than LHR.

True about 204 I believe !

And has expanded domestic feed to 18 whilst Heathrow has slashed it's own routes to just 6.

 

[Aceshigh]

In many respects it makes sense for other northern airports to support Heathrow expansion. Manchester airport has been seen to basically mop up all the med routes and clear up the middle easterns, many of which would work perfectly well from some of the other northern airports. When I say northern I include the Scottish airports as the Manchester airport marketing machine is keen to expand it's catchment into those areas. This has been shown in some of the latest airport advertising and sponsorships.

Just as Manchester airport wants a slice of the Heathrow cake, other Northern airports want a slice of the Manchester airport cake. So if you can understand the frustration trying to compete with Heathrow airport then the frustration of other northern areas is similar with regards to Manchester airport, the similarities are there.

One of the problems I see is in Manchester and Heathrow airports quest to capture a wider market, they are treading on the toes of other smaller airports and the wider public who don't necessarily all want to fly from Manchester or Heathrow. There's something wrong if you live in Leeds and have to travel to Manchester to catch a flight to Palma. Likewise, there's something wrong if you have to travel to Heathrow to catch a flight to South Africa.

As I mentioned a week or so ago, and I know this has no bearing on what happens in real life with market forces but if other airports around the north were given a fair crack of the whip with Med and Middle Eastern routes, they would be far more supportive of Manchester airport concentrating on the long haul routes that will only work from Manchester or Heathrow.

BUT crucially Manchester isn't asking for £12bn to provide all its supporting infastructure ?

Well apart from the paltry A6 relief road which by someway is breaking all records. 4 miles in 7 years breathtaking !

 

[Aviador]

BUT crucially Manchester isn't asking for £12bn to provide all its supporting infastructure ?

Well apart from the paltry A6 relief road which by someway is breaking all records. 4 miles in 7 years breathtaking !

To be fair I don't think airports should have anything to do with paying for relief roads. That's the government or local councils job.

 

[Jerry]

I don't think its so much that they'd lose out if LHR expands, just that they'll benefit from LHR not expanding.

But will they? I'm not so sure. If you look at BHX United and American still pulled out Air India still launched a new destination and it's got a chance of Indigo launching new services. With Gatwick the US3 still don't fly there and neither does Air Canada mainline. BA is launching new routes in response to Norwegian and the loss of Monarch not restrictions at LHR. With MAN it still has 2 out of the 3 US3 and the other passed it ops onto Virgin. BAs expansion there isn't because of restrictions at LHR and if BA looked at long haul it would be to serve the MAN market not because of restrictions at LHR. I think many of the airlines that fly to MAN do so because MAN has it's own market rather than instead of LHR. I don't think an airline looks at MAN as an alternative for Heathrow and London. I believe they look at them as different markets. Which for some is to big enough to fly direct to.

 

[Jerry]

True about 204 I believe !

And has expanded domestic feed to 18 whilst Heathrow has slashed it's own routes to just 6.

Yet Heathrow sees 75 million passengers a year and Manchester 30 million. I think looking at the we have more routes is deceptive and as for the domestic feed Manchester has Flybe operating most of it and they aren't slot restricted. If they were at LHR with no slot restrictions i wonder how much a bigger network they'd have.

 

[Jerry]

[QUOTE="Jerry, post: What do people think MAN will lose if Heathrow gets its 3rd runway?

Heathrow is earmarked for £12bn min and possibly £18bn in roadrail infastructure.

....what about some equality of funding for infastructure projects in Newcastle Birmingham Liverpool The South West?

What about taxpayer subsidies for a company owned by shareholders abroad.

What about a taxpayer subsidy for a company that has "allegedly " not paid corporation tax in years.

This money cannot be spent twice and the gravytrain of spend in the SE is at eyewatering levels;

Elizabethan Line
Thameslink
BankUndergnd
DLR
Waterloo and now they want another £26bn for Crossrail 2 whilst throwing us the mirage of HS2.

The SE is getting money signed off by Whitehall with gusto whilst the rest of us can go to hell in a hand cart.

If the runway and expansion wasn't proposed then that money wouldn't be available to the rest if the country. I don't think it's a case of taking money from elsewhere but finding the money specifically for those projects. What the regions need to is get better at finding the money for their specific projects either through government or privately.

 

[Aceshigh]

Yet Heathrow sees 75 million passengers a year and Manchester 30 million. I think looking at the we have more routes is deceptive and as for the domestic feed Manchester has Flybe operating most of it and they aren't slot restricted. If they were at LHR with no slot restrictions i wonder how much a bigger network they'd have.

To be fair I don't think airports should have anything to do with paying for relief roads. That's the government or local councils job.

I quite agree but when the government force feed the South East with billions whilst ignoring probjects in the rest of the country one can't help feeling we don't have a level playing field.

 

[Jerry]

I quite agree but when the government force feed the South East with billions whilst ignoring probjects in the rest of the country one can't help feeling we don't have a level playing field.

Because there isn't a level playing field and there never will be but the more power's accrued locally through things like devolution and local mayor's then the regions will have more ability to do things themselves rather than waiting for Westminster to do it because with them London will always be at the front of the queue.

 

[Aviador]

I quite agree but when the government force feed the South East with billions whilst ignoring probjects in the rest of the country one can't help feeling we don't have a level playing field.

As we're all to aware of that!

 

[Silvercity]

It's been interesting to see which airports have come out in favour and which have been critical of LHR's expansion plans.

The major opposition is Gatwick, Manchester & Birmingham, whilst most smaller airports in general support expansion. The former may possibly stand to lose out if LHR expands, and whilst the latter may or may not benefit from LHR expanding, they are unlikely to lose out.

Liverpool has supported expansion at LHR, with the hope a connection will be re established , but surely that's a good think and will provide greater choice and accessibility. A short hop flight from LHR to LPL I don't believe will affect what Manchester wants to do with long haul connections greatly.

 

[Silvercity]

In many respects it makes sense for other northern airports to support Heathrow expansion. Manchester airport has been seen to basically mop up all the med routes and clear up the middle easterns, many of which would work perfectly well from some of the other northern airports. When I say northern I include the Scottish airports as the Manchester airport marketing machine is keen to expand it's catchment into those areas. This has been shown in some of the latest airport advertising and sponsorships.

Just as Manchester airport wants a slice of the Heathrow cake, other Northern airports want a slice of the Manchester airport cake. So if you can understand the frustration trying to compete with Heathrow airport then the frustration of other northern areas is similar with regards to Manchester airport, the similarities are there.

One of the problems I see is in Manchester and Heathrow airports quest to capture a wider market, they are treading on the toes of other smaller airports and the wider public who don't necessarily all want to fly from Manchester or Heathrow. There's something wrong if you live in Leeds and have to travel to Manchester to catch a flight to Palma. Likewise, there's something wrong if you have to travel to Heathrow to catch a flight to South Africa.

As I mentioned a week or so ago, and I know this has no bearing on what happens in real life with market forces but if other airports around the north were given a fair crack of the whip with Med and Middle Eastern routes, they would be far more supportive of Manchester airport concentrating on the long haul routes that will only work from Manchester or Heathrow.

Yes I tend to agree with you.

 

[Aceshigh]

Blaming the decline of domestic feed on slots is something of a misnomer. Of course there would be more availability to operete domestic feed but woukd it make a real difference. BA already operate Glasgow Newcastle etc every hour or so.
At best you would simply dilute that traffic if say EZY also operated. Would they actually cover the gaps eg Humberside etc ?

BA have ceased many flights due to lack of demand eg LBA and not neccessarily because of lack of slot.

HAL do much prodding the problem is thst its from the back of the bus !

 

[Aceshigh]

Interesting development re Heathrow thus evening with Grayling and sidekick appearing before the Transport Committee.

According to prune the DFT will not pay for ANY supporting infastructure cages reqd. Heathrow will pay !!

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/3a3a9566-614e-4ce3-9b27-3a10e33f5907

it's apparently at 1755

Wonder if Heathrow know ?

Will there be implications for Manchester infastructure ?

 

[Coathanger16]

BUT crucially Manchester isn't asking for £12bn to provide all its supporting infastructure ?

This point in the debate has still not been decided upon. LHR aren't asking for £12bn for surface access because either they don't think it is needed or that they shouldn't be the ones to pay for it. I'd agree with the latter. If airports had to pay for everything related to expansion, it would make the expansion unjustifiable from a business sense - I recall a certain poster on here saying something about a utilities hub having to be moved for MAN to expand, and that if MAN had to pay for that it would make the expansion uneconomical for them. Yes there is a disparity in spending between London & SE and the rest of the country, but that doesn't mean the SE should stop getting funded to satisfy the rest of the country.

But will they? I'm not so sure. If you look at BHX United and American still pulled out Air India still launched a new destination and it's got a chance of Indigo launching new services. With Gatwick the US3 still don't fly there and neither does Air Canada mainline. BA is launching new routes in response to Norwegian and the loss of Monarch not restrictions at LHR. With MAN it still has 2 out of the 3 US3 and the other passed it ops onto Virgin. BAs expansion there isn't because of restrictions at LHR and if BA looked at long haul it would be to serve the MAN market not because of restrictions at LHR. I think many of the airlines that fly to MAN do so because MAN has it's own market rather than instead of LHR. I don't think an airline looks at MAN as an alternative for Heathrow and London. I believe they look at them as different markets. Which for some is to big enough to fly direct to.

I would agree that perhaps with the exception of Gatwick to an extent, Manchester and Birmingham are different markets to LHR and hence airlines will launch routes based on demand to those places and not restrictions at LHR. However, airlines will usually have a list of destinations that they want to serve, with certain routes having priority. I would imagine a lot of airlines want to serve LHR and it is high on their priority, but they can't get the slots currently. Hence routes with less priority are launched in the meantime. A new runway at Heathrow likely won't open for another 10 years by which time MAN's long haul network would have expanded, and I'd hope BHX's would as well, so I think any impact on those airports would be marginal.

Blaming the decline of domestic feed on slots is something of a misnomer. Of course there would be more availability to operete domestic feed but woukd it make a real difference. BA already operate Glasgow Newcastle etc every hour or so.
At best you would simply dilute that traffic if say EZY also operated. Would they actually cover the gaps eg Humberside etc ?

BA have ceased many flights due to lack of demand eg LBA and not neccessarily because of lack of slot.

HAL do much prodding the problem is thst its from the back of the bus !

Well MAN don't really have slot issues (not like LHR anyway) yet they have a large domestic network - what does that serve exactly? Transfer passengers - LHR has more long haul flights to more destinations than MAN. People visiting MAN - London's a bigger city. If MAN can sustain a domestic network to that many destinations, why can't Heathrow?

With passenger numbers growing year on year for the LBA route, I don't think you can blame the reduction of flights on lack of demand.

According to prune the DFT will not pay for ANY supporting infastructure cages reqd. Heathrow will pay !!

I don't know if their position has changed, but previously the DfT said they wouldn't fund any infrastructure that would be required solely to support expansion. As pretty much any infrastructure development around LHR would benefit non airport users as well, that leaves the door open for DfT funding.

 

[Aceshigh]

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/3a3a9566-614e-4ce3-9b27-3a10e33f5907

I have double checked the prune posting and yes at 1755 it's pretty unequivocal. Expectation that Heathrow will pick up the costs of moving all local infastructure. Interestingly he did make sure his colleague said it and not him.

 

[Coathanger16]

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/3a3a9566-614e-4ce3-9b27-3a10e33f5907

I have double checked the prune posting and yes at 1755 it's pretty unequivocal. Expectation that Heathrow will pick up the costs of moving all local infastructure. Interestingly he did make sure his colleague said it and not him.

As far as I could tell, the clip at 17:55 was referring just to the work on the M25 - which LHR have always stated they would pay for...

 

[Silvercity]

Blaming the decline of domestic feed on slots is something of a misnomer. Of course there would be more availability to operete domestic feed but woukd it make a real difference. BA already operate Glasgow Newcastle etc every hour or so.
At best you would simply dilute that traffic if say EZY also operated. Would they actually cover the gaps eg Humberside etc ?

BA have ceased many flights due to lack of demand eg LBA and not neccessarily because of lack of slot.

HAL do much prodding the problem is thst its from the back of the bus !

I haven't head that EZY would.be wanting to provide regional links to LHR, they would need to.be much more transfer friendly if they did being more of a P2P company ( although they seem to moving into transferring passenger more these days ) . They did operate LPL-LTN at one point which was popular and P2P, although some may have transferred independently at Luton.

The airline I've heard that would be interested in LHR - domestic links in Flybe, which would probably be the best carrier for the job.

 

[Coathanger16]

The airline I've heard that would be interested in LHR - domestic links in Flybe, which would probably be the best carrier for the job.

I would tend to agree. With their smaller aircraft they could operate with a decent frequency without providing too many seats.

 

[Aceshigh]

As far as I could tell, the clip at 17:55 was referring just to the work on the M25 - which LHR have always stated they would pay for...

Heathrow have said they would contribute £1bn for "surrounding " infastructure but I would have thought tunneling bridgework widening etc? will come in at a lot more than that. Moving the incinerator site one iof the largest in Europe was also mentioned with HAL picking up the tab. When challenged Grayling said yes that as well.

News to shareholders ?

There is a lot of smoke and mirrors but clearly if Heathrow has to shell out billions that they did not forsee it must surely mean a revaluation of profits ?