Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5442559/

Topic: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: ZKOJH
Posted 2012-04-18 19:59:58 and read 13571 times.

I picked this one up on sky news; it seems BA can't rule the airport can they, oh wait they do! now they have the BD slots

Chronic congestion at Heathrow Airport is driving international airlines away from the UK, according to a new survey.

More than half of scheduled airlines have plans to base flights in other countries because of the crucial London facility's lack of capacity, the poll showed.

And 86% of airlines said they would put on extra flights if more arrival and landing slots were available at Heathrow, according to the Board of Airline Representatives in the UK (Bar UK) survey.

"The message I hear from airlines is clear: If there's no room at Heathrow then flights will move out of the UK altogether."

http://news.sky.com/home/business/article/16210838

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: thenoflyzone
Posted 2012-04-18 20:32:41 and read 13468 times.

Quoting ZKOJH (Thread starter):
"The message I hear from airlines is clear: If there's no room at Heathrow then flights will move out of the UK altogether."

No airline with slots at LHR will abandon them simply because they want more slots. LHR is and will always be a slot restricted and congested airport, even with a third runway.

And yes, airlines wishing for more frequency into London will use Gatwick and Stansted. Look at Air China and Korean Air. Many others will follow in the coming years.

Thenoflyzone

[Edited 2012-04-18 20:36:55]

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: stylo777
Posted 2012-04-18 22:24:48 and read 13223 times.

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 1):

LH and TK followed already to LGW

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: Someone83
Posted 2012-04-18 23:37:11 and read 12991 times.

Quoting stylo777 (Reply 2):
LH and TK followed already to LGW

Yes, but they didn't cut anything at LHR despite this

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: IndianicWorld
Posted 2012-04-18 23:53:45 and read 12923 times.

This is all just another ploy to make them take action.

The truth is that there is capacity in London at present, especially as SEN comes online now also to further give some airlines options. Airlines are also starting to use larger aircraft, which is likely what was needed anyway.

LHR will be the prized destination, with LGW 2nd, LCY as a major business option, with the LCC's and a few other players choosing to persue STN, LTN and SEN.

A well rounded offering, which although not perfect, is still a great foundation to work from.

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2012-04-18 23:57:50 and read 12905 times.

This merely means that LHR is at capacity, nothing more. The government has made it clear that capacity will not be added to LHR. There is room at LGW, STN, and LTN for them.

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: richardw
Posted 2012-04-19 01:53:27 and read 12513 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5):
This merely means that LHR is at capacity, nothing more.

There's slot sitting going on with small aircraft, so not 'at capacity'.

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: brightcedars
Posted 2012-04-19 02:03:00 and read 12468 times.

What, they will land in France or Ireland and put people on boats to reach the UK? What nonsense!

The weaker airlines will be squeezed to the less premium airports and the average aircraft size will steadily increase to maximize each slot's revenue potential.

There are still carriers offering RJ service to LHR, how about that?

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: VV701
Posted 2012-04-19 02:20:54 and read 12391 times.

According to the linked article the survey determined that 85 per cent of current operators at LHR "said they would put on extra flights if more arrival and landing slots were available at Heathrow". This finding is in significant conflict with with the opening statement of the article that reads:

"Chronic congestion at Heathrow Airport is driving international airlines away from the UK, according to a new survey."

Now read who released the survey results - no less than BAA CEO Colin Matthews.

Now put his statement within the context of BAA's forced sale of LGW and the announcement of the Competition Appeal Tribunal's judgement of 1 February 2012 that found in favour of the Competition Commission's decision of 19 July last year that required BAA to sell Stansted Airport.

No doubt more than one airline with operations at LHR responded to the survey by saying that they would consider future expansion at an airport outside the UK if they could not expand their LHR operations. Hence the reported statement by Mr Matthews:

"The message I hear from airlines is clear: If there's no room at Heathrow then flights will move out of the UK altogether."

As has already been stated in this thread the chances of any airline of any significance moving their existing services away from LHR let alone entirely from the UK, thus giving BA a free ride, are remote. Indeed this is only likely to happen in a BD-like situation unless the sale of LHR slots and a move most likely to the competitive airports of LGW or STN provides sufficient capital to enable that airline to keep operating.

Having said all of that one can see a non-British airline that is not a oneworld member deciding to route trans-Atlantic traffic not destined for or originating in the UK through a hub in continental Europe by adding new flights that could have operated into LHR if a third runway was built. But aren't Star and Sky Team Airlines doing that already?

Building a third LHR runway? Do you think that possibility could be the reason that it is BAA who are releasing the results of this survey?

Finally here is a link to the Press Releases issued by the Board of Airline Representatives in the UK, the reported sponsors of the survey, so far this year:

http://www.bar-uk.org/press/press_2012.htm

As at the time of posting this reply there is no press release on what is their survey. However since it is likely that all or nearly all airlines operating into LHR would like to see a tyhird runway . . .

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: TeamInTheSky
Posted 2012-04-19 02:26:21 and read 12364 times.

Quoting richardw (Reply 6):
There's slot sitting going on with small aircraft, so not 'at capacity'.

Very good point. Didn't KL just release an additional slot to DL so DL could switch its LGW flight to LHR? It seems that there are definitely slot-holders that are not utilizing their slots most efficiently.

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: VV701
Posted 2012-04-19 03:29:59 and read 12160 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5):
The government has made it clear that capacity will not be added to LHR.

Correct.

In so far as the government has approved trials for mixed mode operation under specific circumstances:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ode-operations-at-heathrow-359602/

the actual number of movements and passengers handled is likely to increase but with no increase in assigned slots or capacity. This will be because fewer flights will be cancelled following any disruption to normal operations.

The impact of these potential changes should not be underestimated as currently a disruption lasting just a couple of hours at LHR can impact both scheduled arrivals and departures over several days as aircraft end up in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: EI564
Posted 2012-04-19 03:52:17 and read 12061 times.

Quoting TeamInTheSky (Reply 9):
Very good point. Didn't KL just release an additional slot to DL so DL could switch its LGW flight to LHR? It seems that there are definitely slot-holders that are not utilizing their slots most efficiently.

Isn't that just nitpicking? If some airlines are slot holding, that still means that other airlines wouldn't be able to get the slots they want. And they'll have to thus operate elsewhere. They may choose another UK airport but they may also choose another European airport (depending on the market). You can never say they will definitely go to another UK airport.

People can't suggest that Heathrow isn't hugely congested right now because it clearly is.

When the article says "driving international airlines away", it means the lack of capacity at Heathrow is driving airlines to choose elsewhere when they they have to decide where to expand. Not that they are giving up existing slots.

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: jumpjets
Posted 2012-04-19 04:19:32 and read 11942 times.

Quoting EI564 (Reply 11):
When the article says "driving international airlines away", it means the lack of capacity at Heathrow is driving airlines to choose elsewhere when they they have to decide where to expand. Not that they are giving up existing slots

Well said EI564 I think that neatly sums up the situation - and without any melodramatics!

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: VV701
Posted 2012-04-19 04:42:25 and read 11807 times.

Quoting EI564 (Reply 11):
When the article says "driving international airlines away", it means the lack of capacity at Heathrow is driving airlines to choose elsewhere when they they have to decide where to expand. Not that they are giving up existing slots.

With respect the headline of the article says a lot more than that. It reads "Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'". "Flee" means leave and leave quickly. So the headline is saying that congestion at LHR is making airlines quickly move their flights away from LHR! The article then goes on to suggest that none of this lost business will go to other UK airports be it to other London airports like LGW or STN or, as new O&D flights, to airports like EDI, GLA, MAN or BRS.

Very clearly this is more than a gross exaggeration. In simple terms no airline has or is likely to flee LHR however congested it is or becomes. Nevertheless some airlines MAY have added or MAY add flights to continental European airports that they MAY have operated to LHR if LHR slots had been available. A possible example is 9W that MAY have established its European mini-hub at LHR if the necessary slots had been freely available.

It is clearly a fact that some airlines operating into LHR have added new flights to LGW that they would likely operate from LHR if the slots were available . It is also possible that at least some trans-Atlantic O&D flights to provincial UK airports may not have been introduced if slots at LHR had been freely available. Equally feeder flights from UK provincial airports to AMS, FRA and CDG may not have been so numerous if slots had been available to operate similarly as extensive networks into LHR. But none of this can be described as "making airlines flee" from LHR.

Recognise that the announcement of the survey results was made by the BAA CEO and that BAA have been forced to sell LGW and are being made to sell STN. So they will be left with just LHR in the southeast of England. They cannot expand LHR beyond the current number of scheduled aircraft movements. They cannot expand LHR beyond the passenger handling capacity of their current and planned terminals. So BAA subsidiary, Heathrow Airport Ltd, has no way of expanding its business in the medium to long term without the construction of a third runway except by finding more terminal space to rent out more shops, cafes and restaurants and turn each terminal into an even larger shopping mall.

So, in a nutshell, that's what it is all about. New business that could come to Heathrow if a third runway was built may not go to just LGW or STN. Some could go to continental European airports.

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: mikey72
Posted 2012-04-19 06:04:21 and read 11551 times.

I would just go in and flatten whatever needed to be flattened, spend whatever needed to be spent and build TWO more runways and TWO more huge shiny terminal buildings !

Anyone that objects to the development of vital infrastructure be it road, rail or air etc should be first in line for whatever cuts have to be introduced when the economy loses business to others.

End of.

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: YULWinterSkies
Posted 2012-04-19 08:21:56 and read 10631 times.

Quoting brightcedars (Reply 7):
There are still carriers offering RJ service to LHR, how about that?

If they are small airlines operating from small home airports at less busy hours, it makes sense.

Quoting ZKOJH (Thread starter):
"The message I hear from airlines is clear: If there's no room at Heathrow then flights will move out of the UK altogether."

There is a word for this: lobbyists.

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: bjorn14
Posted 2012-04-19 08:29:19 and read 10497 times.

I heard that LGW is at or near capacity, is this true? STN is where the real growth can occur in the LON market.

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2012-04-19 08:42:38 and read 10216 times.

Quoting TeamInTheSky (Reply 9):
Quoting richardw (Reply 6):
There's slot sitting going on with small aircraft, so not 'at capacity'.

Very good point. Didn't KL just release an additional slot to DL so DL could switch its LGW flight to LHR? It seems that there are definitely slot-holders that are not utilizing their slots most efficiently.

DING DING DING! We have TWO winners!

How to fix Heathrow

Do not pay a fortune to make Heathrow bigger, when it can first be made so much better


http://www.economist.com/node/10924139

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: richardw
Posted 2012-04-19 08:46:06 and read 10148 times.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 17):
http://www.economist.com/node/10924139

The article in the link is nearly four years old.

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2012-04-19 08:54:10 and read 10012 times.

Quoting richardw (Reply 18):
The article in the link is nearly four years old.

It's an editorial piece, and LHRs problems of four years ago are still clearly present.

What the article suggests to fix LHR addresses exactly what you said: too many airlines with little incentive to use slots efficiently.

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: babybus
Posted 2012-04-19 08:56:10 and read 9974 times.

Quoting ZKOJH (Thread starter):
More than half of scheduled airlines have plans to base flights in other countries because of the crucial London facility's lack of capacity, the poll showed.

And 86% of airlines said they would put on extra flights if more arrival and landing slots were available at Heathrow, according to the Board of Airline Representatives in the UK (Bar UK) survey.

This is a contradiction. Either the passengers want to fly specifically to LHR or not. Why would an airline fly them somewhere else? Doesn't make sense.

Quoting richardw (Reply 18):
The article in the link is nearly four years old.

This article is better used as budgie cage liner. Obviously very bad journalism.

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2012-04-19 09:03:00 and read 9881 times.

Quoting babybus (Reply 20):
This article is better used as budgie cage liner. Obviously very bad journalism.

Care to tell us why you think that?

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2012-04-19 09:43:11 and read 9289 times.

While I'd love to see expansion at LHR, I've given up hope. Soon we'll see a new generation of TATL capable narrowbodies (I expect the A320/A321 NEO by 2020 to have the range.) LHR would be an excellent location to fragment travel further across the Atlantic. But the lack of slots will inhibit that expansion. I guess US air should send a thank you card to the Heathrow NIMBYs.   

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: richardw
Posted 2012-04-19 10:00:34 and read 9050 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 22):
Soon we'll see a new generation of TATL capable narrowbodies (I expect the A320/A321 NEO by 2020 to have the range.

Would you expect these to be part of USA based airlines' fleets?

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: redzeppelin
Posted 2012-04-19 11:31:25 and read 8017 times.

Does anybody know the breakdown of O&D vs connecting traffic at LHR?

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: gdg9
Posted 2012-04-19 12:02:04 and read 7998 times.

I personally didn't mind taking the Gatwick Express as compared to the Tube when landing at London. Both were fine and got me into Central London in about the same time.

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: United787
Posted 2012-04-19 12:17:29 and read 7797 times.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 14):
I would just go in and flatten whatever needed to be flattened, spend whatever needed to be spent and build TWO more runways and TWO more huge shiny terminal buildings !

Anyone that objects to the development of vital infrastructure be it road, rail or air etc should be first in line for whatever cuts have to be introduced when the economy loses business to others.

End of.

Here Here. Sounds like you need Richard M. Daley to run for office in London! A-Netters may critizise him for his role in getting rid of CGX, but what he did for MDW and ORD is unmatched in recent time in North America and Europe (aka NIMBYlands)

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: par13del
Posted 2012-04-19 13:46:01 and read 6946 times.

Quoting richardw (Reply 23):
Would you expect these to be part of USA based airlines' fleets?

I would assume so, EU carriers are not using narrow bodies TATL, brings up the whole discussion of why US carriers unlike their EU counterparts cannot fill VLA's.
Additionally, which EU carriers are really looking for the additional range that the A32XX series will gain, they may like the improved efficiency but the additional range does not seem to be a demand from EU carriers.

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: brilondon
Posted 2012-04-19 17:14:59 and read 5378 times.

Quoting gdg9 (Reply 25):

I personally didn't mind taking the Gatwick Express as compared to the Tube when landing at London. Both were fine and got me into Central London in about the same time.

You may want to try the Heathrow Express, you just may find it quicker.

Quoting par13del (Reply 27):
I would assume so, EU carriers are not using narrow bodies TATL, brings up the whole discussion of why US carriers unlike their EU counterparts cannot fill VLA's.
Additionally, which EU carriers are really looking for the additional range that the A32XX series will gain, they may like the improved efficiency but the additional range does not seem to be a demand from EU carriers.

No, American carriers don't need a Jumbo bus because they don't funnel all their passengers through one hub such as LHR, FRA, AMS, and CDG. They also don't offer the frequency that many Americans demand.

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: rogercamel
Posted 2012-04-19 17:56:09 and read 5057 times.

Quoting gdg9 (Reply 25):
I personally didn't mind taking the Gatwick Express as compared to the Tube when landing at London. Both were fine and got me into Central London in about the same time.

But only 15% of people arriving at/leaving LHR take the tube - around 10% take LHR express (my figures are a little out of date). LHR is far superior to LGW if you are travelling by car to most of London, and areas north and west of London. My guess is that LGW express is similarly around 10-15% of those going to LGW.

Quoting redzeppelin (Reply 24):
Does anybody know the breakdown of O&D vs connecting traffic at LHR?

I've always wondered this - is there anywhere that BA could create a second hub and funnel their connecting passengers away from LHR which could then increase O&D capacity?

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: VV701
Posted 2012-04-19 18:44:15 and read 4706 times.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 19):
It's an editorial piece, and LHRs problems of four years ago are still clearly present.

The editorial piece was published on 27 March 2008 to coincide with the implementation of Open Skies between the EU and the USA..

T5 at Heathrow was opened to the public on, yes, 27 March 2008.

So clearly the editorial piece was written before T5 was opened.

Are you really suggesting that the £4.3 billion investment in T5 was totally wasted because "LHR's problems of four years ago are still clearly present"?

Prior to the opening of T5 the terminals in use at LHR were designed to handle a maximumj of 50 million psassengers a year. In the year prior to the opening of T5, 2007, they handled 68,066,028 passengers. This was over 36 per cent above design maximum capacity. This was the root cause of many of the specific problems identified in the article.

The maximum capacity of T5 is 30 million passengers a year. Clearly this increase in passenger capacity introduced since the article was written has had a profound impact. Statistically this is confirmed by many parameters. One of these, referred to in the editorial piece, is the number of bags lost.

The absolute number and proportion of bags lost at LHR has dropped very significantly over the last four years. This is not simply because of the advanced baggage handling system in T5. It is also because, as one example, the older baggage handling system in T4 is no longer totally overloaded. The resulting improved efficiency of the systems in both of these terminals and, indeed, in the other terminals, has also improved all aspects of customer service impacted by baggage handling.

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2012-04-19 19:04:15 and read 4563 times.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 30):
Are you really suggesting that the £4.3 billion investment in T5 was totally wasted because "LHR's problems of four years ago are still clearly present"?

Not sure why you are thinking that. The article doesn't say T5 was a bad idea. What it does do is it correctly predicts that T5 will not solve congestion problems. What the article warns against is spending money on a third runway (or even an all new airport) before other improvements can be made which may render a third runway and another airport (extremely expensive projects) unnecessary.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 30):
Prior to the opening of T5 the terminals in use at LHR were designed to handle a maximumj of 50 million psassengers a year. In the year prior to the opening of T5, 2007, they handled 68,066,028 passengers. This was over 36 per cent above design maximum capacity. This was the root cause of many of the specific problems identified in the article.

The maximum capacity of T5 is 30 million passengers a year. Clearly this increase in passenger capacity introduced since the article was written has had a profound impact. Statistically this is confirmed by many parameters. One of these, referred to in the editorial piece, is the number of bags lost.

The absolute number and proportion of bags lost at LHR has dropped very significantly over the last four years. This is not simply because of the advanced baggage handling system in T5. It is also because, as one example, the older baggage handling system in T4 is no longer totally overloaded. The resulting improved efficiency of the systems in both of these terminals and, indeed, in the other terminals, has also improved all aspects of customer service impacted by baggage handling.

That is merely the author providing some contextual information and is far from the main thrust of the article. The entire argument in this piece is resumed in the following two sentences: "[LHR] is crowded because it is too cheap for airlines to use. . .the price for using Heathrow should reflect the value and scarcity of its capacity"

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: VV701
Posted 2012-04-19 21:06:32 and read 4045 times.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 31):
Not sure why you are thinking that. The article doesn't say T5 was a bad idea.

The article said:

"the £4.3 billion ($8.5 billion) Terminal 5, which opened this week, will improve Heathrow for the 40% of passengers who fly with BA"

But you said

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 19):
LHRs problems of four years ago are still clearly present.

So the article said things would improve but you say they have not. And the article took no account of the closure of T2 (because it predated that event by almost two years) and did not recognise that the increased overall airport capacity on the opening of T5 would benefit all and not just BA passengers. By saying all the problems still exist you deny the article's forecast improvements and are effectively saying that the expenditure on T5 has done nothing to improve anything.

The article mentioned baggage losses. I have already addressed that issue.

The article mentioned interminable queues. These were an inevitable feature of an airport handling over 36 per cent more passengers than it was designed to handle. They have been reduced by the addition of T5 as well as features such as increased numbers of passengers using on-line check-in and the large number of self-service electronic check-in consoles installed over the last four years.

The article mentioned shoddy facilities. Since it was written the brand new and far from shoddy T5 has opened and 30 months ago the oldest and shoddiest of LHR's terminals, T2, was closed.

As far as the article states that "it suffers the worst flight delays" I would dispute its analysis. I have experienced much worse delays at airports other than at LHR (which is my local airport). However this may be a matter of luck. And it is indisputable that LHR's runways are working to maximum capacity and entering a stack before landing is unfortuneately the norm. Tthis is the one problem that is now just as bad as it was four years ago.

Clearly, however, the opening of T5, the closure of T2, the increased passenger handling capacity and the wider use of electronic technology have all improved the LHR experience over the last four years Much of this improvement is due to the ongoing investment in the airport's infrastructure.

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: mikey72
Posted 2012-04-20 00:06:01 and read 3851 times.

Quoting United787 (Reply 26):
Quoting mikey72 (Reply 14):I would just go in and flatten whatever needed to be flattened, spend whatever needed to be spent and build TWO more runways and TWO more huge shiny terminal buildings !

Anyone that objects to the development of vital infrastructure be it road, rail or air etc should be first in line for whatever cuts have to be introduced when the economy loses business to others.

End of.
Here Here. Sounds like you need Richard M. Daley to run for office in London! A-Netters may critizise him for his role in getting rid of CGX, but what he did for MDW and ORD is unmatched in recent time in North America and Europe (aka NIMBYlands)

The thing is we all want to save the environment. not suffer from noise pollution, burn as little fossil fuel as possible etc

BUT....

The cold hard truth is that the UK is a small island with a 'massive' population of 70M and counting who all have to be fed, watered and recieve whatever benefits (to comfortably survive) they are entitled to etc

What 'enrages' me is that the types that protest will be the 'first' to complain when the coffers start running dry because our infrastructure won't support an equally expanding economy.

The other little facts are firstly that in most cases now people purchased their homes knowing they were near one of the busiest airports in the world.

Secondly if you don't like noise I suggest you move out of London.

When you consider 'all' of this I have little sympathy or patience for this debate.

We either keep up as a nation and tap growth and business where it is emerging or we slip down the rankings and the quality of life for 'everyone' eventually suffers.

Woe betide anyone that whines to me though if that happens.

(get off my soap box now)

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: rutankrd
Posted 2012-04-20 00:28:32 and read 3796 times.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 33):
We either keep up as a nation and tap growth and business where it is emerging or we slip down the rankings and the quality of life for 'everyone' eventually suffers.

Nothing really to do with this debate but UK PLC has been in decline for the best part of 60 years now.

Yes we found a niche in Finance that has propelled LONDON as a separate economy however at the same time we have
rudely neglected other areas of the economy including manufacture and funded research (MOST of these activities are NOT in London)

Not long ago UK PLC was the 4 largest single economy now the seventh !

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: rutankrd
Posted 2012-04-20 00:45:54 and read 3756 times.

Oh and that myth that we are a small island

The main island that is England/Wales/Scotland in the 9th Largest island on the planet.

Only Honshu in Japan is comparable size in the developed world.

The remaining large isles are either frozen solid or covered in forests !

Oh and Australia is a continent !

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: mikey72
Posted 2012-04-20 01:14:32 and read 3687 times.

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 34):

Your comments aren't even worth considering.

Rutankrd - do us all a favour and go and live somewhere else.

Call yourself British ?

Good job we havn't all got your attitude.

Youv'e got a very obvious and apparent chip on your shoulder...........

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: rutankrd
Posted 2012-04-20 01:32:04 and read 3654 times.

No i don't call myself British i don't have that schism of identity i my a proud English Man and European .
I am not racist and i do love the capital well i live and work here and have done for more than ten years.

You know from previous threads i support the third runway (Only if its built 3000mm long in the first place) and have also supported the IAG take over of BMI in the NATIONAL interest of UK PLC.

I don't like Willie Walsh but why should I ?

As to the chip i am a northerner (you probably guessed that anyway) grew up in a sixties and seventies in a time when the region was in desperate decline. I am cynical because although London has seen a magnitude of growth (The Finance sector) this has never filtered out .
That decline remains and if you do visit the regions parts of the North West and North East you will find families without work and in poverty . THEY have been neglected by governments both blue and red for just about ever.

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: mikey72
Posted 2012-04-20 01:54:04 and read 3584 times.

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 37):
I don't like Willie Walsh but why should I ?

I don't like or dislike him as I have never met him.

Have you ?

I do however like what he has done for BA.

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 37):
As to the chip i am a northerner (you probably guessed that anyway) grew up in a sixties and seventies in a time when the region was in desperate decline. I am cynical because although London has seen a magnitude of growth (The Finance sector) this has never filtered out .

I can understand your grievance to a point but in the most part it makes no sense and I'm struggling to find a word to describe your grievance.

You are battling against the history, geography and make-up of the UK that has made London what it is today.

We should all be damn greatful for the income the city provides (no matter how grotesque its remuneration policies sometimes are.) No more so than now.

New York, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Singapore, Frankfurt etc are no different.

I don't think you need a history lesson on the reasons why the North has struggled (collapse of the coal industry, decline in empire etc) but that doesn't mean it always has to be the case.

It also doesn't mean we cast envious and green eyes over what we 'have' got going for us...i.e the city of London.

Leave that to the French and the Germans.

(Ref your comments about the size of the UK....in relation to the size of the population.....it's 'small' !! )

[Edited 2012-04-20 02:31:37]

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: cloudyapple
Posted 2012-04-20 03:37:28 and read 3422 times.

Quoting richardw (Reply 6):
There's slot sitting going on with small aircraft, so not 'at capacity'.

Airlines are more than welcomed to arrive on a saturday evening after 6 and depart before 8 on a sunday morning.

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: maddog888
Posted 2012-04-20 04:43:09 and read 3333 times.

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 37):
the third runway (Only if its built 3000mm long in the first place)

   Wow, a whole 3000 millimetres long! You know you might be able to get planning permission for that one. I assume you are planning on flying similarly scaled wide-bodies from it.      

   Julian

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2012-04-20 07:19:55 and read 3170 times.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 32):
So the article said things would improve but you say they have not.

The subject of this thread, of the article posted by the OP, and including the subject of the article posted by myself, is flight delays. Likewise, my comments do not refer to lost luggage - they refer to delayed flights. And as the evidence clearly suggests, flight delays are still a problem at LHR.

Yes, many other problems have been addressed in the mean time, including airport competition by breaking up BAA. But these haven't solved flight delays and they won't. What is needed to fix flight delays is what the article I posted proposes, which would also fix problems associated with inefficiencies of the slot system - namely, airlines underutilizing their slots with small aircraft.

[Edited 2012-04-20 07:27:29]

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: babybus
Posted 2012-04-20 07:34:10 and read 3157 times.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 41):
flight delays are still a problem at LHR.

I fly in and out of LHR with BA all the time. All those flight delays outbound are included in the timetable times. For arrivals, in my experience, if the aircraft gets to the stack roughly on time we land on time. Enroute delays are a different matter.

As a Londoner I still oppose a third runway or any extension to LHR.

Yes, I'm a heretic.  

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: mikey72
Posted 2012-04-20 10:06:29 and read 3068 times.

Well we will just have to .....Keep Calm And Carry On........

In light of the fact that my two runways and shiny terminal buildings have got more chance of being built on the moon...

I guess there are worse things that can happy in life than stacking over London for 20 minutes....

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: cloudyapple
Posted 2012-04-20 11:59:28 and read 2947 times.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 41):
The subject of this thread, of the article posted by the OP, and including the subject of the article posted by myself, is flight delays.

No it is not. It is congestion, which is not the same as delay. Congestion means demand at or exceeding capacity, which may not necessarily lead to delay if managed properly.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 41):
And as the evidence clearly suggests, flight delays are still a problem at LHR.

Can you show us the evidence? The article you posted made a claim but offered no evidence whatsoever.

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: VV701
Posted 2012-04-21 06:11:28 and read 2595 times.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 41):
The subject of this thread, of the article posted by the OP, and including the subject of the article posted by myself, is flight delays. Likewise, my comments do not refer to lost luggage - they refer to delayed flights. And as the evidence clearly suggests, flight delays are still a problem at LHR.

Incorrect. It was the article posted by yourself and not I that expanded this debate beyond congestion.

In Reply 17 you introduced a four year old, very out-of-date link to an article in the Economist. You introduced the link that described LHR as "the most abhorrent international airport". You introduced the link that talked of LHR being the airport that "loses most bags", has "endless queues" and talks of its "shoddy facilities". And now you critique me for discussing subjects that you raised!

And what did you say when you expanded our debate beyond that of the original link? You said:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 17):
How to fix Heathrow

Do not pay a fortune to make Heathrow bigger, when it can first be made so much better

So what has "better" got to do with the TO's link that was all about making it "bigger".

To me it was more than clear that "better" refers to the criticisms first raised here in the link you provided.

If you really were referring only to congestion at LHR - which it certainly seems to me that you were not - exactly what is your solution as to "how to fix Heathrow" and relieving that congestion without paying "a fortune to to make [it] bigger" which seems to be the only solution envisaged by the operator and most if not all others?

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: thenoflyzone
Posted 2012-04-21 06:47:12 and read 2523 times.

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 40):
Wow, a whole 3000 millimetres long! You know you might be able to get planning permission for that one

Nope, i still think the NIMBY's wont allow it !

Thenoflyzone

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: mikey72
Posted 2012-04-21 07:01:34 and read 2503 times.

I breezed through Terminal 5 the other day, did some shopping in some fantastic shops, had a delicious lunch in an excellent restaurant with spectacular views of aircraft and runways. (not in an airline lounge either)

I don't know about the rest of LHR but Terminal 5 is an absolute joy to use.

Always has been.

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2012-04-21 08:38:10 and read 2391 times.

Quoting cloudyapple (Reply 44):
No it is not. It is congestion, which is not the same as delay. Congestion means demand at or exceeding capacity, which may not necessarily lead to delay if managed properly.
Quoting VV701 (Reply 45):
Incorrect. It was the article posted by yourself and not I that expanded this debate beyond congestion.

Obviously you two are incorrect. Let's take a look at the OP article first:

"He is one of the airline and industry chiefs anxious for the Government to reverse its policy and give the go-ahead for expansion at Heathrow.

In the speech at the conference in London, Mr Matthews is expected to say: "These figures show that it is a mistake to believe that flights displaced from Heathrow will automatically fly to Stansted, Gatwick or Birmingham instead."

They are clearly talking about flights and even refer to the third runway, not luggage. They are not talking about long queues, either.

Quoting cloudyapple (Reply 44):
Can you show us the evidence? The article you posted made a claim but offered no evidence whatsoever.

If there is no issue whatsoever, why all the talk about a third runway or even a new airport?

Quoting VV701 (Reply 45):
In Reply 17 you introduced a four year old, very out-of-date link to an article in the Economist.

Given the speeds that government changes policy, the article is hardly "old". And for that matter, it is still very, very relevant.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 45):
You introduced the link that described LHR as "the most abhorrent international airport". You introduced the link that talked of LHR being the airport that "loses most bags", has "endless queues" and talks of its "shoddy facilities". And now you critique me for discussing subjects that you raised!

I did not raise these issues whatsoever. The articles does, but only as a background, it is not even close to being the point of the article.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 45):
So what has "better" got to do with the TO's link that was all about making it "bigger".

Improve pricing policies, and you can get more people through LHR with less congestion without making it "bigger" in terms of infrastructure.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 45):
exactly what is your solution as to "how to fix Heathrow" and relieving that congestion without paying "a fortune to to make [it] bigger" which seems to be the only solution envisaged by the operator and most if not all others?

As already alluded to in this thread and in the article I posted, LHR's slots are not optimally used. The current slot system needs to be scrapped and replaced with one whose landing fees are variable throughout the day to reflect peak hours and off peak traffic hours demand. This doesn't cost money, it makes money, all the while incentivizing carriers to use larger aircraft* while also keeping aircraft occupancy as high as possible.

For this to happen, BAA needs to be able to structure and negotiate the fee structures with the airlines. It needs to be able to set prices in negotiations with airlines. Currently, BAA does not have this freedom.

*and watch BA order more A380s before you can say "WhaleJet". For that matter, the A380 could see a flurry of new orders.

[Edited 2012-04-21 08:55:53]

[Edited 2012-04-21 09:05:48]

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: VV701
Posted 2012-04-21 14:09:57 and read 2214 times.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 48):
I did not raise these issues whatsoever. The articles does, but only as a background, it is not even close to being the point of the article.

You very clearly raised these issues as the first reference to them in this thread is in Reply 17 that you posted.

And "background"? Here is the relevant extract from YOUR link:

"Yet Heathrow is also the world's most abhorred international airport. It suffers the worst flight delays and loses the most bags. Its endless security queues, rude staff and shoddy facilities plague passengers."

Loosing bags is given equal prominence to flight delays. We could have a semantic argument over endless queues and shoddy facilities. But "only . . . background". Hardly.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 48):
you can get more people through LHR with less congestion without making it "bigger" in terms of infrastructure.

As I have already pointed out LHR handled more than 67 million passengers in 2007 using an infrastructure designed to handle only 50 million passengers. So in that respect they were doing a pretty good job.

Do not provide links in your posts if you do not want others to respond to anything they say.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 48):
As already alluded to in this thread and in the article I posted, LHR's slots are not optimally used.
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 48):
As already alluded to in this thread and in the article I posted, LHR's slots are not optimally used. The current slot system needs to be scrapped and replaced with one whose landing fees are variable throughout the day to reflect peak hours and off peak traffic hours demand. This doesn't cost money, it makes money, all the while incentivizing carriers to use larger aircraft* while also keeping aircraft occupancy as high as possible

This is a very simplistic approach. The slot coordinator at LHR, Airport Coordination Ltd has to look at this issue in a much more practical manner. One problem is that the number of slots at any airport varies with the size of the aircraft.

The slot coordinator has to recognise the spacing between aircraft of varying sizes that changes because of different levels of wake turbulence produced by different sizef aircraft. In very simplistic terms this means that any increase in the size of aircraft using the airport will result in fewer arrival and departure slots being available. To simply set a pricing policy that encouraged the use of larger aircraft could even be counter productive. Here note that in a study I carried out and reported on a-net in May 2008 the average separation when an aircraft landed on 09L following any single aisle (small) aircraft was 75 seconds. The average separation when a single aisle aircraft landed following a twin aisle aircraft wa almost 80 per cent longer at 134 seconds. So, rough order of magnitude, you camn land two smaller aircraft for every larger aircraft.

The slot coordinator has to assign slots on the basis not only of runway but also terminal use. Each terminal has a maximum passenger throughput per hour. Simply increasing the size of aircraft through some price mechanism could result in passengers having to remain seated on arriving aircraft on their stands if the number of arriving passengers exceeded the terminal's ability to handle them. Here the slot coordinator takes into account passenger numbers likely to be arriving on international flights separately from those arriving on domestic flights as the former need to transit immigration control and the latter do not.

The slot coordinator also needs to take into account not only the numbers of aircraft arriving and departing with reference to the number of aircraft stands. Here at LHR the size of the aircraft is important. The slot coordinator categorises each LHR stand into one of seven size categories, namely "Small", "Medium", "Large", "Jumbo", "Jumbo Wide", "Jumbo Stretch" and "Jumbo Extra".

The largest number of available stands at LHR fall into the "Medium" category - see below. Indeed I believe all or certainly the significant majority of stands at T5A are "medium" stands and therefore only handle single-aisle aircraft. To convert them to a larger category would require significant infra-structure investment, cause disruption to operations during the conversions and require a reduction in the number of stands and so a reduction in the number of aircraft T5 could handle (which would hardly help reduce congestion).

All of this can be seen by accessing one of the slot coordinator's biannual reports and studying the detail at:

http://www.acl-uk.org/reportsStatistics.aspx?id=98&subjectId=33

Simply increasing the size of the aircraft - even assuming that passengers would respond to these changes - simply would not work. It could well cause more congestion on the ground. Landing and departures slots are simply not the only constraints at any airport's operations.

Finally it is worth noting that an airport operator needs to provide the infrastructure to handle its customers' aircraft and passengers and charge them fairly for the use of this infrastructure.

BAA makes three charges for each aircraft movement:

1. A rotation charge based on the registered Maximum Take Off Weight of that specific aircraft

2. A Stand parking charge for each 15 minute period or part of a 15 minute period that the stand is occupied with a lower charge for remote stands (as opposed to those with an air bridge)

3. A charge for each arriving and departing passenger

I think that if BAA were to reverse their current policy that results in higher charges for aircraft with a higher MTOW they would be open to legal challenges from their customers particularly as around 170,000 out of 290,000 expected arriving aircraft at LHR during the current season will be in the second smallest (Medium) category - check out Page 4 for Summer 2012 in the above link.

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2012-04-21 15:27:43 and read 2112 times.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 49):
And "background"? Here is the relevant extract from YOUR link:

"Yet Heathrow is also the world's most abhorred international airport. It suffers the worst flight delays and loses the most bags. Its endless security queues, rude staff and shoddy facilities plague passengers."

Loosing bags is given equal prominence to flight delays. We could have a semantic argument over endless queues and shoddy facilities. But "only . . . background". Hardly.

The article is titled "HOW TO FIX HEATHROW" not "HEATHROW'S PROBLEMS". The "meat" of the article will obviously be the author's prescriptions to fixing LHR.

Nothing but background is exactly what the part you quoted is.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 49):
As I have already pointed out LHR handled more than 67 million passengers in 2007 using an infrastructure designed to handle only 50 million passengers. So in that respect they were doing a pretty good job.

That's utterly pointless. We are, after all, talking about LHR's problems and how to fix them.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 49):
Do not provide links in your posts if you do not want others to respond to anything they say.

I do want you to comment, but I want you to comment on the main point of the article.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 49):
Here note that in a study I carried out and reported on a-net in May 2008 the average separation when an aircraft landed on 09L following any single aisle (small) aircraft was 75 seconds. The average separation when a single aisle aircraft landed following a twin aisle aircraft wa almost 80 per cent longer at 134 seconds. So, rough order of magnitude, you camn land two smaller aircraft for every larger aircraft.

If the number is 80%, than a 100% large aircraft operation will land more people at LHR than switching between heavies and non heavies.

Also, AFAIK, the separation between an A320 taking off behind a 747 and a 767 are the same, which means an even greater benefit.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 49):
The slot coordinator has to assign slots on the basis not only of runway but also terminal use. Each terminal has a maximum passenger throughput per hour. Simply increasing the size of aircraft through some price mechanism could result in passengers having to remain seated on arriving aircraft on their stands if the number of arriving passengers exceeded the terminal's ability to handle them. Here the slot coordinator takes into account passenger numbers likely to be arriving on international flights separately from those arriving on domestic flights as the former need to transit immigration control and the latter do not.

This is BAA's job, and of course terminal capacity will affect prices as well when BAA negotiates with airlines.



Quoting VV701 (Reply 49):
The largest number of available stands at LHR fall into the "Medium" category - see below. Indeed I believe all or certainly the significant majority of stands at T5A are "medium" stands and therefore only handle single-aisle aircraft.
Quoting VV701 (Reply 49):
require a reduction in the number of stands and so a reduction in the number of aircraft T5 could handle (which would hardly help reduce congestion).

The whole idea here is to use fewer, but larger aircraft. So that's not a problem.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 49):
I think that if BAA were to reverse their current policy that results in higher charges for aircraft with a higher MTOW they would be open to legal challenges from their customers particularly as around 170,000 out of 290,000 expected arriving aircraft at LHR during the current season will be in the second smallest (Medium) category - check out Page 4 for Summer 2012 in the above link.

It's not BAA's policy, it's the British government's policy. BAA is not allowed to change the current policy to the one I mentioned without a change in the law.

As far as the customers - the airlines - well, yes, there would be a pretty fundamental disruption in terms of fleet planning and network planning. To reduce the impact of this policy, perhaps a gradual change over a period of 5 years or so could be considered. The airlines may kick and scream for a while, but it's time to let BAA charge what LHR is worth.

In the end, the whole problem is very simple: price caps like the ones imposed on BAA causes congestion. It's basic supply and demand.

[Edited 2012-04-21 15:35:43]

Topic: RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'
Username: Pu
Posted 2012-04-22 18:20:00 and read 1729 times.

Just to add another angle here, if AA is taken over by Doug Parker and US, BA may suddenly find themselves with their primary alliance partner less interested in sending so much connecting traffic over LHR. Whereas the AA of late seemed intent on having BA distribute American customers onwards to Europe and beyond over London, a new management team at AA may prefer more p2p flying from the Americas to Europe, the ME and even Africa, overflying LHR.

Not that LHR shrinks in this or any likely scenario, but a changing AA may mean a changed BA and therefore changes at Heathrow.

Pu


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/