Route Development & Rumours

[lbaspotter]

Am sure fellow member @Bigman will know the answer to the trains, frequency for the LBA Parkway station?

 

[YorkshireLad]

Am sure fellow member @Bigman will know the answer to the trains, frequency for the LBA Parkway station?

I assume it would be the same as they are on the line now - 2X per hour each way and more services at peak times (peak train times, not peak LBA times) betweeen Harrogate and Leeds

 

[Bigman]

I assume it would be the same as they are on the line now - 2X per hour each way and more services at peak times (peak train times, not peak LBA times) betweeen Harrogate and Leeds

The plan was for 2 all station stoppers and 2 semi-fasts per hour with LNER using one of the semi-fast slots on alternate hours

 

[Starflyer]

There's no reason why LM shouldn't get the same loads as BA but they probably need a similar sized aircraft to make it pay. I think the ATR is too small and doesn't have the passenger appeal. An E190 would fit the bill, but as they haven't got any maybe the reason they aren't keen on operating between LBA and LHR is lack of a suitable aircraft.

I can't think of many examples where airlines have gone out and acquired a new type of aircraft just to fly a route that they don't already serve - that's a high-stakes game with huge introductory costs to bring in a new fleet and no guarantee of a return based on the performance of a route on which you have no history. There are more examples of where that approach has gone wrong than right.

E170s and E190s are absolutely the wrong aircraft for Heathrow based on the movement charges which are a function of aircraft noise certification. An E190 is £3,511 per movement (per take off and landing). That's £35.82 per passenger on a completely full aircraft just to pay the Heathrow landing charge. In contrast, an A380 (or an ATR72) pay £772.54 per movement. On a full BA A380, that's £1.57 per passenger or a full Loganair ATR72, £10.72 per passenger. You'd be on a near-guaranteed suicide mission flying E170s or 190s into Heathrow.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

I can't think of many examples where airlines have gone out and acquired a new type of aircraft just to fly a route that they don't already serve - that's a high-stakes game with huge introductory costs to bring in a new fleet and no guarantee of a return based on the performance of a route on which you have no history. There are more examples of where that approach has gone wrong than right.

E170s and E190s are absolutely the wrong aircraft for Heathrow based on the movement charges which are a function of aircraft noise certification. An E190 is £3,511 per movement (per take off and landing). That's £35.82 per passenger on a completely full aircraft just to pay the Heathrow landing charge. In contrast, an A380 (or an ATR72) pay £772.54 per movement. On a full BA A380, that's £1.57 per passenger or a full Loganair ATR72, £10.72 per passenger. You'd be on a near-guaranteed suicide mission flying E170s or 190s into Heathrow.

Im sure aircraft weight has some bearing on landing charges. An A380 isnt practical from Leeds and nor is an ATR.

 

[Starflyer]

Not at Heathrow. They have movement charges (per take-off and per landing) which are based on the noise classification of the aircraft and not related to its size.

I agree an A380 isn't practical from Leeds, but why would an ATR not be practical? Loganair are flying them from Dundee and IOM into Heathrow, both of which are longer sectors than LBA-LHR. If you haven't got an LHR service and someone rolls up offering an ATR, are you going to say no?!

Edit: an ATR72 is a modern-day Viscount. Judging by the Avatar, I rather hope it would be acceptable!

 

[Finger66]

3 x daily 66 seat ATR72 on LHR would be perfect to build the route up - but with interline. There is some p2p but not enough as BE proved. But better frequency encourages the business market and also makes more connections possible. Just one major problem here - we need an airline to do it. As an outsider how about Emerald UK? IAG code-share after all, but would it damage DUB connections, or would it increase oneworld possibilities especially out west!

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Not at Heathrow. They have movement charges (per take-off and per landing) which are based on the noise classification of the aircraft and not related to its size.

I agree an A380 isn't practical from Leeds, but why would an ATR not be practical? Loganair are flying them from Dundee and IOM into Heathrow, both of which are longer sectors than LBA-LHR. If you haven't got an LHR service and someone rolls up offering an ATR, are you going to say no?!

Edit: an ATR72 is a modern-day Viscount. Judging by the Avatar, I rather hope it would be acceptable!

It really needs to be a jet. Props just arent as popular.

 

[LBA4EVER]

In my opinion flying turboprops into heathrow from LBA would not work for a number of reasons, firstly the general public see prop planes as slow and abit old school not aware that todays props are actually as modern and nearly as quick as jet aircraft, secondly due to a slightly slower approach speed and lower passengers loads props can be problematic at heathrow esp now the industry is picking up, the airport wants the big boys in, the widebodies.
LBA just need to try get BA back with their A319s, try for an early morn and eve slot time, there are a few ATRs and Embraer operating into LHR atm so if these planes are flying in im sure with some wriggling about an early slot can be found for an LBA-LHR link.

 

[Starflyer]

I think the debate is largely academic as I don't think it's remotely likely to happen come what may. But if everyone is rejecting the notion of a turboprop on LBA-LHR as inadequate, then good luck in securing any future prospects for the route!

 

[Finger66]

I totally agree @Starflyer that the return of the route is highly unlikely tbh, but it still makes for good healthy debate and on-going wishful thinking to top up the other recent positive route news we have had. If Emerald keep increasing DUB frequency then IAG probably content with that for North America pax. Anywhere else is going to have to be KLM for now, with hopefully others to come in the future - all of whom we have previously mentioned are basically pure speculation for now. But optimism remains.

 

[lbaspotter]

If we are ever to get the Leeds - London Heathrow route back I just can't see it working unless it is British Airways again, using Airbus A319 (non night stopper) with a mid morning & early evening rotation which will allow for good connections on to Long haul services. It won't be good for point to point day trips again as I think that market has long gone.

Failing that it's got to be an ATR operator with an British Airways (IAG) codeshare eg Loganair or Emerald.

Realalistly those are our only real options left now?

 

[The Pole]

Just on this point, why is getting the LBA-LHR such an issue, BMA did it several times daily back in the 80's & 90's (Viscounts & DC9) and air travel is more common place nowadays. Is it slot availability at LHR, cheaper rail fares?

 

[XEROX]

Leeds to London Heathrow via train is stressful, i try and avoid .... 2 hours on LNER (£100 rtn), get the tube to Paddington 15 minutes (£7 rtn), change and get the Heathrow Express..another 20 min (£40 rtn)..

 

[michael]

Leeds to London Heathrow via train is stressful, i try and avoid .... 2 hours on LNER (£100 rtn), get the tube to Paddington 15 minutes (£7 rtn), change and get the Heathrow Express..another 20 min (£40 rtn)..

and therein lies one of the issues, unless you're a spritely 20 something going on a world tour with not much more a rucksack for company you're unlikely to want to start lugging cases ( which could be 2 per person) up and down tube escalators in order to get to LHR. Now, ( In readiness for being shot down and hurled verbal abuse at ) being honest who from the north of England needs LHR when there's our favourite fly in the ointment over the hill. With 3 x A380's a day to Dubai plus regular Abu Dhabi flights, regular Turkish flights, a regular Hong Kong link, all the connections anyone could ever need if you're travelling east of the UK are all there - realistically if you get to Dubai you can connect to virtually anywhere. The only part of the world where LHR has better connections to than MAN is the USA, especially the southern part of the continent such as Brazil etc. As has been discussed so many times before if LBA could get links to Istanbul or one of the Spanish hubs then I would have thought that opens up more connection possibilities than LHR?

 

[LBA4EVER]

Or perhaps if we cant get the LHR link back then maybe the airport should be more on the ball to encourage LH to start a frankfurt service with many connections there, plus of course AF or even SN Brussels airlines.

 

[Bigman]

Gatwick is a damn sight easier by rail with a simple cross platform change at Stevenage. Maybe BA could look at Gatwick instead

 

[XEROX]

Gatwick is a damn sight easier by rail with a simple cross platform change at Stevenage. Maybe BA could look at Gatwick instead

I think the problem with Gatwick, it doesn't give you the full BA route network, especially transatlantic routes (apart from NYC), think they are more Caribbean and Euro route heavy.

 

[Seasider]

I am in agreement with Michael, forget LHR, try IST and either FRA/CDG for connections.
I don't agree with his suggestion of using MAN. For any one on the East Coast, the drive is horrendous and the less said about TPE, the better.

 

[Aviador]

One thing I would add is although I understand the challenges airlines face but just what is it exactly that makes operating from Manchester to Heathrow so much more appealing than operating from Leeds to Heathrow? Both are large cities with huge urban conurbations. Perhaps I'm being somewhat nieve but sometimes it seems as though some airlines just want to be where the action is, not necessarily where they need to be. BA hasn't aquied the nickname London Airways for no reason.