Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5766020/

Topic: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: blueflyer
Posted 2013-05-16 22:47:18 and read 10368 times.

The independent commission investigating airport capacity in the UK has concluded that having two hubs for London is a better option than two additional runways at LHR.

The commission believes that all three alliances are big enough that if one of them, presumably Star or Skyteam, moved all its operations to another hub, "this would not result in substantial connectivity losses for passengers of that alliance."

Apparently one of the reasons driving this two-hub solution is that, while LHR might indeed need two more runways, the commission feels the odds of getting all necessary approvals to build them are not high enough.

This is a pretty big blow for LHR. Just a few days ago, they dropped their support for mixed mode operations and additional night-time flights in a gamble to force the commission to recommend additional runways, absent other realistic solutions.

It seems the commission believes either Star or Skyteam moving en bloc is more likely to happen than new runways being built though.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/808cc...27-00144feab7de.html

[Edited 2013-05-16 22:50:40]

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: brons2
Posted 2013-05-16 22:52:51 and read 10369 times.

I would personally be content if they would replace T3 with something decent. Transferring between BA and AA at 7AM London time on a weekday after an overnight flight to LHR is not fun. It would be much more palatable if one either didn't have to switch terminals, or had an easier time switching.

The next time I will have to do this is all too soon....sigh...

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2013-05-17 00:28:35 and read 10103 times.

I never understood why two big mes-alliances happened. One was that AF "bought" KLM and the other was that BA and IB teamed up via IAG Holding.

The perfect match would have been BA-KL and the discussion about 2 hubs for London would not be needed. AMS is de facto as much a hub airport for the UK as MUC is for Italy. BAKL could serve every small airfield in the UK via AMS and keep the money in the family,

Two hubs in the metro London area do not work. we all know that BA failed with LHR/LGW and splitting up the cake between alliances won't work either, especially not in times when alliances are splitting up quicker than hub airports.

The commission might be realistic and made a pragmatic suggestion to solve the capacity problem, but just moving star somewhere else won'Ät do the trick either. It would have to be Star and Skyteam. leaving BA and the ME3 plus other non-alligned carriers at LHR.

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: Lofty
Posted 2013-05-17 03:33:31 and read 9769 times.

It is a big job to get airlines to mover Terminals could you imagine going to Star members and saying sorry guys but you are moving to LGW! I guess the only winners would be OW as airlines jump ship for the alliance that stays at LHR.

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-05-17 03:38:38 and read 9744 times.

How does this work commercialy? Which one is forcibly removed from profit making LHR? Can you imagine the legal challenges? The only winner here are the lawyers.

So Air France and KLM are forced to move out or Lufthansa get the heave ho. Only someone with no industry expertise could come up with this. Connectivity only works in concert with point to point with high yields. Moving these key players out would just see the traffic move to.....British Airways. There's ground one of your case M'Lud.

Muppets

[Edited 2013-05-17 03:41:32]

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: slinky09
Posted 2013-05-17 04:32:23 and read 9581 times.

Quoting Lofty (Reply 3):

It is a big job to get airlines to mover Terminals could you imagine going to Star members and saying sorry guys but you are moving to LGW! I guess the only winners would be OW as airlines jump ship for the alliance that stays at LHR.

Yes, WW would rub his hands with glee at this. Goodbye T3 and hello T5D, E and F!

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 4):
So Air France and KLM are forced to move out or Lufthansa get the heave ho. Only someone with no industry expertise could come up with this. Connectivity only works in concert with point to point with high yields. Moving these key players out would just see the traffic move to.....British Airways. There's ground one of your case M'Lud.

Indeed - it seems even this commission can't get it's head around taking the big decision for Britain and for air transport.

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: Bthebest
Posted 2013-05-17 04:59:39 and read 9492 times.

and yet:

UK Transport Committee: LHR Needs A 3d/4th Runways

There are already 3 other major airports in London, and if airlines/alliances thought it was worthwhile moving there, they would have. The fact is that airlines want to stay at LHR - that's not gonna change any time soon.

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2013-05-17 05:50:22 and read 9359 times.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 4):
How does this work commercialy? Which one is forcibly removed from profit making LHR?

you cannot force anyone to go to another airport. Simply not possible. We had this discussion at FRA with that place somewhere in the boonies which calls itself Frankfurt Hahn. No way, Companies have rights as persons have. Simple. People who thought that "caqrgpo" can be moved had to understand in first place that even at a large cargo airport, only about 50% moves in freighers and that a freight hub is, not only for that reason, undivisible. If it can't be done at the main hiub it likely won't be done at all. Business that moved on night freighters of LCAG simply moved, after the curfew was imposed, on to other carriers in Europe or production even went to the Far East.

What a government can do is make life difficult at a given place, no additional slots, no growth, curfews and stuff like that. But at the end of the day, such a government would hurt itself as they wpould curtail growth of the national economy at the same time. Such restrictions would fall back on their feet.

That is actually the situation in the UK right now. Whereby London is really lucky by having overflow valves with LCY, LGW, LTN and STN. If Berlin sticks with the self-imposed idiotic single airport doctrine they will face a situation in 20 years or so where BER is full with no overflow valve around.

At the end of the day, cowardly politics will lose out and along the people and the national economy will lose out.

Instead of goving in to public demand of a loud but small minority, governments should explain why things are necessary and need to be done rather sooner than later.

.

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: EricR
Posted 2013-05-17 06:02:04 and read 9310 times.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 7):

you cannot force anyone to go to another airport. Simply not possible

There certainly are precedents. For example, airlines that served ORY such as AA were forced to move to CDG.

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-05-17 06:07:15 and read 9292 times.

Quoting Bthebest (Reply 6):
and yet:

UK Transport Committee: LHR Needs A 3d/4th Runways

Right, but:

Quoting blueflyer (Thread starter):

Apparently one of the reasons driving this two-hub solution is that, while LHR might indeed need two more runways, the commission feels the odds of getting all necessary approvals to build them are not high enough.

...

Quoting Bthebest (Reply 6):
There are already 3 other major airports in London, and if airlines/alliances thought it was worthwhile moving there, they would have.

The incumbents at LHR have been holding out for more runway capacity, even though every attempt at it has not gotten very far, and I suspect that odds go down with time because the protesters can make their voices heard louder with the Internet.

We read:

Quoting blueflyer (Thread starter):
The commission believes that all three alliances are big enough that if one of them, presumably Star or Skyteam, moved all its operations to another hub, "this would not result in substantial connectivity losses for passengers of that alliance."

So if the political guidance stays consistent (and it probably will because in reality no party can deliver a third runway) then the alliances themselves might perhaps decide that moving is in their best interest. Indeed no one can force them to move, and indeed it's a huge risk to move but more and more the third runway plan just isn't happening.

I suspect all three alliances will just prefer to make do with LHR.

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: avek00
Posted 2013-05-17 06:11:02 and read 9269 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 9):
I suspect all three alliances will just prefer to make do with LHR.

It's more than suspicion, it's a fact. No one is moving from Heathrow to hand BA added leverage in the UK market for nothing in return.

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: Deltal1011man
Posted 2013-05-17 06:27:45 and read 9208 times.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 4):
How does this work commercialy? Which one is forcibly removed from profit making LHR? Can you imagine the legal challenges? The only winner here are the lawyers.

No way to make it work.
I would expect other countries governments to have a complete s**t fit over it if the UK government tried to force airlines out(and would that pretty much end Open skies?)

What i get from it is they are basically hoping that Star or Sky will move its opps to other London airports because they are completely out of touch with reality. Airlines pay a pretty penny for LHR slots, they aren't going to just magically move to Gatwick just because. Does LGW even have any US airline flights anymore? (US had CLT-LGW but not sure if they have moved that to LHR or not)

Quoting EricR (Reply 8):
There certainly are precedents. For example, airlines that served ORY such as AA were forced to move to CDG.

But wasn't that due to the bilateral? (only ask because at one point Delta was going to fly JFK-ORY with a 757 but pulled it before it started. I believe this was possible due to open skies.)

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-05-17 06:31:29 and read 9189 times.

Split hubs do not work!

Japan was bypassed as ICN had better frequency/connectivity.

The mid-east carriers thrived due to lack of European hub expansion.

I'm certain most LAX to London flights will remain at LHR. Thus frequency at the 2nd hub will be poor and thus business travelers will look elsewhere for onward connections.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 7):
you cannot force anyone to go to another airport.

   Look at LGW.

Quoting EricR (Reply 8):
There certainly are precedents. For example, airlines that served ORY such as AA were forced to move to CDG.

There are precedents the other way too such as LGW and Mirabel. Airlines were forced to Mirabel, but lack of connections killed the international market. The trend is toward mega hubs. Look at the US consolidation...

If that 2nd flight lacks a connection, than another hub will fill that demand and it won't be a British airline.

With the NEO and MAX, more and more routes will be filled by narrowbodies and the non-expanding hubs will loose out to competition with better fragmentation and frequency.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 7):
At the end of the day, cowardly politics will lose out and along the people and the national economy will lose out.

  

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: rutankrd
Posted 2013-05-17 06:37:46 and read 9149 times.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 11):
No way to make it work.
I would expect other countries governments to have a complete s**t fit over it if the UK government tried to force airlines out(and would that pretty much end Open skies?)

What i get from it is they are basically hoping that Star or Sky will move its opps to other London airports because they are completely out of touch with reality. Airlines pay a pretty penny for LHR slots, they aren't going to just magically move to Gatwick just because. Does LGW even have any US airline flights anymore? (US had CLT-LGW but not sure if they have moved that to LHR or not)

Quoting EricR (Reply 8):
There certainly are precedents. For example, airlines that served ORY such as AA were forced to move to CDG.

But wasn't that due to the bilateral? (only ask because at one point Delta was going to fly JFK-ORY with a 757 but pulled it before it started. I believe this was possible due to open skies.)

There is a wolf un-mentioned and quite missed by those across the atlantic -Should the UK elect a majority Conservative government (by no means certain) in 2015 and the EU in/out referendum take place leading to the exit door, the EU-US openskys treaty may be suspended.

In that case the UK government may just give the CAA and transport ministry the power to reintroduce access restrictions on LHR !

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: EnviableOne
Posted 2013-05-17 06:48:06 and read 9087 times.

Personally I think none of the options work, for any of the Alliances to move, LGW or STN would need at least another runway to be able to handle the additional air traffic and I don't see that happening.

Plus all the emphasis on the major infrastructure projects (Crossrail, HS2, ...) is providing connectivity to LHR and not improving that to other airports.

IMHO, the solution to London and the south easts Air Capacity is major infrastructure investment to direct rail links between the major airports(the only possible now is LTN to LGW via Capital Connect, and that has a flaky bus route on the LTN end) and improve road networks; or open a new airport along the lines of DFW with at least 6 runways a HS rail hub and motorway links.

I found a good few locations for this new airport with good transport links and plenty flat land, Either the former Marden Airfield in Kent, Chalgrove near oxford or near Stratfield Saye in Hampshire, all are equidistant from the centre of London and are close to a motorway or two and mainline rail links.

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: avek00
Posted 2013-05-17 07:07:32 and read 9012 times.

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 13):
There is a wolf un-mentioned and quite missed by those across the atlantic -Should the UK elect a majority Conservative government (by no means certain) in 2015 and the EU in/out referendum take place leading to the exit door, the EU-US openskys treaty may be suspended.

In that case the UK government may just give the CAA and transport ministry the power to reintroduce access restrictions on LHR !

Even in a worst case scenario, the UK and US would quickly agree to an Open Skies arrangement that keeps the status quo in place.

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: BD338
Posted 2013-05-17 07:09:27 and read 9005 times.

Quoting blueflyer (Thread starter):
It seems the commission believes either Star or Skyteam moving en bloc is more likely to happen than new runways being built though.

they might be correct in that there is a 1% chance of 2 LHR runways getting approved but there might be a 2% chance of Star or Skyteam moving to LGW or STN. Realistically it isn't going to happen, what happened when LHR was opened to US carriers? They all moved from LGW to LHR. LGW is practically full and calling for their own additional runway, STN is too far out and even with a major upgrade in rail connections to central London would still be further out than LHR via the Heathrow Express.

Airport managers in CDG, AMS and FRA must be feeling pretty happy right now, and can't believe their luck, if this is the eventual recommendation and outcome.

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: FlyingHollander
Posted 2013-05-17 07:10:41 and read 8988 times.

Someone needs te be able to force carriers to serve less frequencies, that would solve quite a big part of the problem.

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: avek00
Posted 2013-05-17 07:24:53 and read 8939 times.

Quoting FlyingHollander (Reply 17):

Someone needs te be able to force carriers to serve less frequencies, that would solve quite a big part of the problem.

You're suggesting that airlines be forced into arbitrary schemes for the London market that will have nothing to do with actual customer demand or business needs!? That's been tried, and failed.

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: Deltal1011man
Posted 2013-05-17 07:28:59 and read 8923 times.

Quoting FlyingHollander (Reply 17):

ah yes the old here in soviet russia you do as we say idea.

Quoting BD338 (Reply 16):

Airport managers in CDG, AMS and FRA must be feeling pretty happy right now, and can't believe their luck, if this is the eventual recommendation and outcome.

this. KLM/AF and LH group are happy as heck this morning. IB is in a tailspin and BA just got rejected for any more expansion.

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-05-17 07:40:42 and read 8883 times.

Quoting EricR (Reply 8):
There certainly are precedents. For example, airlines that served ORY such as AA were forced to move to CDG.

Wasn't that because CDG was newly built at the time? Unless London was going to build a new airport, that situation wouldn't be analogous.

-Mir

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: EricR
Posted 2013-05-17 07:44:08 and read 8869 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 12):
Quoting EricR (Reply 8):
There certainly are precedents. For example, airlines that served ORY such as AA were forced to move to CDG.

There are precedents the other way too such as LGW and Mirabel. Airlines were forced to Mirabel, but lack of connections killed the international market. The trend is toward mega hubs. Look at the US consolidation...

True, however, in the case of ORY, AA's objective was to fly to an airport closer to the city center. They did not rely on connecting traffic on the Paris end since the majority of their traffic was to/from points within the US.

The LGW/LHR problem is the exact opposite of the ORY/CDG problem. LGW is the least desired of the two London area aiports. On the flip side, ORY was a more desired airport for some carriers such as AA (although someone like DL would prefer CDG due to their alliance and more reliance on connecting traffic on the Paris side).

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: rutankrd
Posted 2013-05-17 07:52:30 and read 8833 times.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 15):
Even in a worst case scenario, the UK and US would quickly agree to an Open Skies arrangement that keeps the status quo in place.

There would be need for a temporary agreement of sorts however a formal bilateral treaty would take time and there are dozens of other bilateral treaties to be revisited.

The Conservative party history on openskys is NOT so good.

Like it or not the London market and access WILL lead to a dual hub operation.

The question however is defining Hub.

If your defining hub as an alliance based interconnection centre, then the only Hub is that of Oneworld at LHR and everything else is focus.

Those focus services are primarily P to P and frankly DO NOT need to be at LHR to serve the London and UK market.

Already we have seen divestment by numerous smaller carriers from LHR and in the years to come this will surely increase.

The beneficiary continues to be in the main BA

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: FlyingHollander
Posted 2013-05-17 07:57:15 and read 8819 times.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 19):
ah yes the old here in soviet russia you do as we say idea.

Kind of, sort of....yeah

There are numerous routes to LHR with a ridiculous amount of frequencies. If there was a set maximum, that would free up capacity. The airlines can choose how to react: larger planes or sending additional frequencies to alternative airports. I get that it is kind of a Soviet measure, but so is sending airlines to a different airport completely. And we all know Boris Island or expanding Heathrow significantly isn't going to happen.

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: AIR MALTA
Posted 2013-05-17 08:45:48 and read 8681 times.

This is the kind of things that will ultimately bring Europe to its knees. Europeans do are becoming uncompetitive because of too many regulations, rules and laws... I mean, how can you sacrifice your economical growth because of a few loonies that happen to live next to Heathrow. I bet more than half of them have moved in that area knwoing they would live next an airport. APD, green tax, regulations, curfews when the rest of the world is moving on and doing business... It is even a waste of time to talk about it.

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: Bthebest
Posted 2013-05-17 09:09:39 and read 9020 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 9):
Quoting Bthebest (Reply 6):
and yet:

UK Transport Committee: LHR Needs A 3d/4th Runways

Right, but:

Quoting blueflyer (Thread starter):

Apparently one of the reasons driving this two-hub solution is that, while LHR might indeed need two more runways, the commission feels the odds of getting all necessary approvals to build them are not high enough.

And the transport committee says:

“We conclude that adding new runways to expand a number of other existing airports will not, on its own, provide a long-term solution to the hub capacity problem. We do however encourage Gatwick’s operator to develop a robust business case for their vision of a second runway.


“We reject the notion of linking existing airports by high-speed rail to form a split-hub; the outcome from this would be highly uncompetitive in terms of passenger transfer times compared to competitor hubs overseas."

Basically saying multi-hubs won't work, due to lack of infrastructure and passenger preference. Did these two commissions get together to make sure they could disagree as much as possible?

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-05-17 09:10:57 and read 9031 times.

How will split hubs serve SAN, PDX, or other growing mid-size markets? Those cities will support *one* hubbing flight per day to London. Split hubs mean not serving certain markets and that a competitor will.

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 22):
The question however is defining Hub.

The US demands equal access. No way would BA fly LHR and not UA.

So for the USA, there would be one hub (LHR).

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-05-17 09:30:35 and read 8888 times.

Quoting brons2 (Reply 1):

I would personally be content if they would replace T3 with something decent. Transferring between BA and AA at 7AM London time on a weekday after an overnight flight to LHR is not fun. It would be much more palatable if one either didn't have to switch terminals, or had an easier time switching.

The next time I will have to do this is all too soon....sigh...

bet

Use a different airline then, or different airport.

I understand your frustration but the present situation is the most practical at this time. I like the present system, it could better if there were a better way to connect between terminals. They have a bus system, but I would put forth a solution that would cost the least and with the least amount of trouble and that would be to have a light rail system between the terminals. Yes, I know there is a link between the terminals now but I was thinking about an airside light rail link between the new terminal 1/2, 3, 4, and 5 with a service of say every 5 - 10 minutes. There is one in ATL, JFK and at LHR would do this before most of the other major international airports.

BTW. This topic seems to come up in one form or another on regular occasions.

[Edited 2013-05-17 09:47:11]

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: capri
Posted 2013-05-17 09:59:38 and read 8536 times.

Isn't LHR situation like a checkers locked game? you have to redo the whole thing from scratch

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-05-17 10:10:59 and read 8407 times.

Quoting blueflyer (Thread starter):
It seems the commission believes either Star or Skyteam moving en bloc is more likely to happen than new runways being built though.

If ya can politically get it passed then it can happen, politicians make the laws, so...
Now which or the existing airports are they going to expand to make this alliance split work, other than LHR the others are single runway only.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 2):
Two hubs in the metro London area do not work. we all know that BA failed with LHR/LGW and splitting up the cake between alliances won't work either, especially not in times when alliances are splitting up quicker than hub airports.

Not sure I agree that BA is a valid example of failure, in BA's case you are talking about one airline attempting to serve
two airports in the same city by offering a different set of services.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 26):
How will split hubs serve SAN, PDX, or other growing mid-size markets?

If the alliance moves, we are talking about all routes all connections via that alliance carrier going to a different airport, at least that's the way I'm taking the proposal, whether it can be done is another story but never say never when politicians are involded.

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: britannia25
Posted 2013-05-17 10:11:52 and read 8430 times.

I know this is kind of moving off topic but why does Heathrow not operate from dual runways? Well, I know it does - one for take offs and one for landings but why is it not split. It would be much more convenient for airlines using T4 to use the southern runway for take off and landing.

Thank you

Britannia  

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-05-17 10:43:08 and read 8100 times.

Quoting AIR MALTA (Reply 24):
This is the kind of things that will ultimately bring Europe to its knees. Europeans do are becoming uncompetitive because of too many regulations, rules and laws...

Seems you're saying the same things about Europe as we read about the US in:

US Aviation Failing? We've Scr* Ourselves (by 744lover May 16 2013 in Civil Aviation)

yet it seems people still need to find a way from A to B and quite often they use airplanes to do it.

Quoting Bthebest (Reply 25):
Basically saying multi-hubs won't work, due to lack of infrastructure and passenger preference.

They use the term 'split-hub' which to me implies a pax within the same airline or alliance having to hop a train to another airport, which is not a suitable arrangement. However they say if a given alliance would move to a different airport then they feel there would not be too much of a drop-off for that alliance. Of course that's hugely costly and hugely risky so crowding at LHR would have to increase to an enormous degree for any one alliance to consider moving out.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 27):
BTW. This topic seems to come up in one form or another on regular occasions.

Probably because it has large national and international ramifications.

Better than asking time and time again when NW (now DL) will get rid of the DC-9s (and now 717s), etc but we all go along with that too.

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-05-17 11:45:52 and read 7547 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 29):
If the alliance moves, we are talking about all routes all connections via that alliance carrier going to a different airport

It would never be allowed for BA to have an exclusive at LHR. Would they be willing to move? It is a pipe dream to think the two hubs will be segregated by alliance. They won't be. Everyone wants LHR. If UA isn't allowed to fly USA to LHR, than neither would any OneWorld. That is the way bilaterals work and unless everyone agrees, it will not happen. There is a reason flights left LGW to LHR in this downtern, all the alliances needed the connections for viability.

Connections occurs across alliances too. From secondary markets in India to the Europe/USA or secondary Chinese/Indinesian/Thai cities to Europe, this is giving a HUGE leg up to the mid-east carriers versus a 4 runway London hub. For its not just the alliances. For example, with a 4 runway hub, B6 will probably initial TATL to LHR/new hub if slots were available for connections. (e.g., BDL-LHR once the NEO gets its legs). If the flight is at the other London hub... no connection.


The best example is ORY/AMS/CDG. We have three hubs serving Skyteam in a small area. Due to having 3 hubs, we have traffic that goes to one to three of the hubs with from poor to good frequency (market size depending). So some secondary markets have very poor connections to other secondary markets. Primary markets are served with less gauge (higher CASM) and thus Skyteam isn't as competitive as they could be. Airlines only make profit on the margins... So we have to talk about the margins.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-05-17 11:46:10 and read 7544 times.

There is a storm in a tea-cup being made here.

Quoting blueflyer (Thread starter):

The independent commission investigating airport capacity in the UK has concluded that having two hubs for London is a better option than two additional runways at LHR.

No, it has not concluded anything. This is the evidence based presentation of initial ideas during the launch of a consultation process.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ile/200238/discussion-paper-04.pdf

Section 4.49 onwards.


Dan  

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-05-17 14:35:40 and read 6383 times.

It's interesting that a four runway LHR kite has been flown to show that a three runway operation wouldn't be so bad  

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-05-17 16:02:17 and read 5898 times.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 34):
It's interesting that a four runway LHR kite has been flown to show that a three runway operation wouldn't be so bad

It's a pretty advanced Kite in that case...


Dan  

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: ME AVN FAN
Posted 2013-05-19 04:41:11 and read 4413 times.

Quoting blueflyer (Thread starter):
The independent commission investigating airport capacity in the UK has concluded that having two hubs for London is a better option than two additional runways at LHR.

London at present has at least FOUR hubs, Heathrow, Gatwick , Luton and Sansted. If Luton or Stansted got expended seriously, the problem would be solved

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: rutankrd
Posted 2013-05-19 05:10:34 and read 4365 times.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 36):
London at present has at least FOUR hubs, Heathrow, Gatwick , Luton and Sansted. If Luton or Stansted got expended seriously, the problem would be solved

Again define HUB

I would have it LHR and more specifically BA/IAG/OW are the ONLY true HUB operations.Traditional interlining legacy operations also operate via LHR whilst SKYTEAM and A* are primarily Focus City status.

The flexible fares carriers at LGW/STN and LTN businesses are predicated on the P2P business models.
That is not to say there is no transfer traffic however its at your own risk and are not HUB systems.

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: Bthebest
Posted 2013-05-19 05:10:36 and read 4358 times.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 36):
London at present has at least FOUR hubs, Heathrow, Gatwick , Luton and Sansted. If Luton or Stansted got expended seriously, the problem would be solved

Only Heathrow is a hub - defined as a transfer point for passengers. The others all deal with predominantly O&D traffic. Heathrow also has significant O&D traffic as well.

It doesn't matter if the airport expands, if no one wants to fly from there. If greater capacity was what the airlines wanted, they would have moved already, but they want the strategic importance and legacy of Heathrow as well.

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-05-19 08:15:01 and read 4164 times.

Quoting Bthebest (Reply 38):
If greater capacity was what the airlines wanted, they would have moved already, but they want the strategic importance and legacy of Heathrow as well.

I'm not sure I'd go with the 'past is prologue' line of reasoning. There is a lot of flux in the airline industry. Consolidation is happening. Alliances are getting stronger. I could see a point where a given alliance might decide that they aren't able to grow enough at LHR and would be better off moving.

I'm not sure the 'legacy of Heathrow' is a great calling card because many can say that their experiences there were not anything they'd like to remember. T5 is helping, but of course not everyone's travels are to/from T5 and those that are often end up with a bus ride they'd rather avoid.

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-05-19 08:48:17 and read 4105 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 32):
It would never be allowed for BA to have an exclusive at LHR. Would they be willing to move? It is a pipe dream to think the two hubs will be segregated by alliance.

It's an option being floated, since a new airport and expansion of LHR has no traction, what else is there?

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 32):
Everyone wants LHR. If UA isn't allowed to fly USA to LHR, than neither would any OneWorld. That is the way bilaterals work and unless everyone agrees, it will not happen. There is a reason flights left LGW to LHR in this downtern, all the alliances needed the connections for viability.

Yes, and now US carriers are just like the rest at LHR, expansion constrained by lack of resources.

I suspect that in 10 years time when LHR traffic diminishes creative minds will come up with creative solutions.
Until them, LHR can continue to be profitable as a premium airport in demand available to the privileged few.

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-05-19 09:19:37 and read 4025 times.

It will take of the other airports to have incentives to move an alliance, better slots, cheaper slots, better connectivity etc.

If one of the smaller airports would expand, pls do it with the future in mind, say you need 2 runways, build a third.. Open up slots and price them below LHR. If the cake is sweet enough the bees will come..

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-05-19 11:53:14 and read 3892 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 12):
Airlines were forced to Mirabel, but lack of connections killed the international market.

Mirabel had so many more problems than international connections; too far out of town without the promised rail connection, no domestic connections and the advent of longer ranged airliners which just didn't need to stop there...and the exorbitant price tag...and more.

One problem with Gatwick, (and other airports), is that BA is the only major UK airline with connections to the rest of the UK, and they live at LHR. If Easyjet, or Aer Lingus, (heck, even Ryanair), had alliance partners to allow foreign airlines to have a one ticket solution to the UK. With the demise of BMI, Star lost their UK connection.

The only reason to choose LHR over FRA, CDG or AMS, is the access to the UK, but I venture that there's nothing magical about LHR, it's just that it has the best UK connections for foreign airlines. If you're only going to London, any local airport will do.

If some alliance smartened up and bagged Easyjet or Aer Lingus, they really wouldn't need LHR. You can one stop to anywhere in the UK from any other airport in the UK. In fact, from the Americas, London forces you to backtrack to the rest of the UK.

Unfortunately, everyone seems to have their heart set on LHR. Nobody except one world needs a hub there. If you're connecting to elsewhere, anywhere in the UK, (or even Dublin), will do. If your destination is London, any London airport will do.

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-05-19 21:09:12 and read 3585 times.

Quoting Bthebest (Reply 25):
Basically saying multi-hubs won't work, due to lack of infrastructure and passenger preference. Did these two commissions get together to make sure they could disagree as much as possible?
Quoting par13del (Reply 40):
I suspect that in 10 years time when LHR traffic diminishes creative minds will come up with creative solutions.

IMHO "Borris Island" would work if enough ground transportation links were built. Better if LGW were closed to help 'seed' the airport with traffic. Even better if LHR were closed (not going to happen, IMHO). But split feed means reduced connections. Maybe I'm biased as I see often cross-alliance connections working at LAX. (e.g., fly in on WN and out TPAC).

What I do know is there will be hub growth outside of London that will be competition. I'd like to see London compete better in the future and that means one large hub. Will it happen? Unlikely. But I can hope.

Take PHL. With US now being part of AA, that hub will grow. When (not if) the NEO or MAX is developed to TATL range, that hub will become quite a competitor to connections at LHR. If LHR doesn't expand... then the growth, by default, goes elsewhere. It might be AUH/DOH/DXB or hubbing in Asia to the east. Or I can hope for more long haul from DEN...

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 42):
but I venture that there's nothing magical about LHR,

LHR and FRA have the top premium O&D markets of Europe. If one wants to grow an airline, it is far easier with the premium traffic. That is due to proximity (people who fly a bunch out of London live near LHR or a transportation link) or those transportation links to the airport.

Take LHR-BLR. It is a high connection (low O&D) route. But thanks to London's high premium O&D, the route is working. There is nothing magical about LHR, but for there to be another hub, it must have transportation links to the premium O&D who currently live near LHR. Taking examples where new airports were built, but the old one kept running, it takes 25 years for premium passengers/business to relocate near the new airport (e.g, IAD).


Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-05-19 23:51:14 and read 3453 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 43):

It's a moot point, regardless. As far as I can tell, the only one really interesting in expanding their presence at LHR is BA. LH had the BMI slots and sold them to BA...nobody in Star wanted them...or at least not enough to pay for them. Their O&D traffic to London seems to be satisfied and their hub wants are taken care of by FRA.

I think overcrowding at LHR, (and London in general), is not so much an airline problem, as a BA problem. Nobody else really seems that concerned about it.

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: abba
Posted 2013-05-20 00:22:37 and read 3426 times.

I have always wondered why they don't link LHR and LGW properly. Namely so that you have a very frequent and fast tube going from the secure area in one airport to the secure area in the other. Why not a mag-lev train? And with a system to transfer luggage equally sufficient between the two so that you as a passenger do not need carry it yourself. In this way LHR and LGW could - measured in travel time - be "moved" very close to each other. Say a fifteen minutes train ride.

The major part of the problem with transferring between the two is that one has to check out of say LGW, going through all the formalities with long immigration ques and picking up luggage (I have done the transfer with two children) only to travel to the next airport, going through all the same formalities once again with added security check! If all this could be eliminated, LGW could in practice function as a terminal of LHR.

Of cause it will be expensive to build a mag-lev train with a system to carry luggage between the two airports, but compared to what other solutions cost it should not be prohibitive.

[Edited 2013-05-20 00:52:45]

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: opethfan
Posted 2013-05-20 00:33:33 and read 3403 times.

Quoting abba (Reply 45):

I have always wondered why they don't link LHR and LGW properly. Namely so that you have a very frequent and fast tube going from the secure area in one airport to the secure area in the other. Whet not a mag-lev train? And with a system to transfer luggage equally sufficient between the two so that you as a passenger do not need carry it yourself. In this way LHR and LGW could - measured in travel time - be "moved" very close to each other. Say a fifteen minutes train ride.

They have thought about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathwick

Most of the airlines lambasted it pretty quickly for being expensive and not doing much to relieve capacity, especially considering that LGW is slot controlled as is and has limited capacity due to the single runway (with no new runway allowed to be considered until 2019)

I'm still very much in preference of the 4 lane LHR proposal, but what do I know? It must be easier (albeit slightly slower) to simply buy the houses in the way (offer double market value and everyone will cave eventually) and tell the environmental protesters where to go (perhaps they can walk by a 787 or CSeries while they're at it) and then do all of the construction, which will arguably solve the problem once and for all.

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-05-20 04:33:28 and read 3185 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 12):
Split hubs do not work!

Japan was bypassed as ICN had better frequency/connectivity.

The mid-east carriers thrived due to lack of European hub expansion.

A single hub has more advantages. I agree with you on that.

Quoting FlyingHollander (Reply 17):
Someone needs te be able to force carriers to serve less frequencies, that would solve quite a big part of the problem.

The market is customer driven, and not much will change that. Regulations have prevented the growth of many airports, but the market demand is the main driving factor.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 32):
The best example is ORY/AMS/CDG. We have three hubs serving Skyteam in a small area. Due to having 3 hubs, we have traffic that goes to one to three of the hubs with from poor to good frequency (market size depending).

And yet these hubs are all quite successful in their own right and on their own merits.  .

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-05-20 06:21:51 and read 3043 times.

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 37):
Again define HUB

Traditional definitions:
All based on fraction of outbound seats and how they are filled.

If less than 30% of outbound seats are filled with connections, than the airport is a SPOKE.
If 30% to 70% of outbound seats are filled with connections, then the airport is a HUB (LHR is at 30%).
If above 70% of outbound seats are filled with connections, then the airport is a WAYPORT.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 36):
London at present has at least FOUR hubs, Heathrow, Gatwick , Luton and Sansted. If Luton or Stansted got expended seriously, the problem would be solved

By the above definition, only LHR is a HUB. While Luton or Stanstead would meet London's O&D needs, they would not help British based airlines compete as a hub. Too many secondary cities would be lost as they only work as connections. This means competitors to British airlines (e.g., UA or EK) would be at an advantage.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 47):
And yet these hubs are all quite successful in their own right and on their own merits.

With AF/KLM's latest financial results?    They have grown well in the past, but a series of split hubs will suffer more in a recession than a well run mega-hub. CDG would do even better with ORY's connections. IMHO, the first step is to build a massive terminal at CDG (with runways) and merge ORY and CDG. This would allow AF to boost gauge (reduce CASM) on a large number of routes and increase frequency on even more. There would be a nice RASM uptick enabled by the new connections/frequency.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: TommyBP251b
Posted 2013-05-20 06:33:47 and read 3036 times.

Hey Everybody,

why is a two hub system working in NYC with EWR being the star alliance hub and JFK the OneWorld and SkyTeam Hub? I know that Star-Alliance flights are also landing in JFK and viceversa.

Why could something similar not work in London with LHR being OneWorld and StarAlliance Hub und Gatwick a SkyTeam Hub?

What is the difference between these two cities and four airports?

Regards

Tom

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-05-20 07:09:02 and read 2963 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 48):
With AF/KLM's latest financial results?

I was targeting the hubs by themselves more then I was targeting the dominating carriers that serves them.  .

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-05-20 07:26:39 and read 2922 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 43):
When (not if) the NEO or MAX is developed to TATL range, that hub will become quite a competitor to connections at LHR.

When they are developed time will tell whether the work done by the 757 was because access to LHR was limited, I do recall seeing a CO 757 at LHR, but most TATL with the NB a/c was to secondary airports and not the major hubs.

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-05-20 07:36:59 and read 2896 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 51):
but most TATL with the NB a/c was to secondary airports and not the major hubs.

   And that will allow US based hubs to bypass LHR and better serve their passengers. If the growth is STN or LTN, that growth is unlikely to be widebodies for O&D to London...

And let's discuss markets such as PDX to HYD. Without growth at LHR, that is a pairing never achieved. While that is a small market, there will be dozens (hundreds?) of such markets LHR will not participate.

And premium customers demand frequency. For providing frequency, LHR is capped.

There will be growth in the market. I'd like to see more on the London side if only for the competition.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: United787
Posted 2013-05-20 11:28:39 and read 2706 times.

Quoting TommyBP251b (Reply 49):
Hey Everybody,

why is a two hub system working in NYC with EWR being the star alliance hub and JFK the OneWorld and SkyTeam Hub? I know that Star-Alliance flights are also landing in JFK and viceversa.

Why could something similar not work in London with LHR being OneWorld and StarAlliance Hub und Gatwick a SkyTeam Hub?

What is the difference between these two cities and four airports?

Regards

Tom

My thoughts exactly

Considering JFK is the LHR of NYC as the preferred international airport but yet UA seems to do very well at EWR.

If I were SkyTeam or Star Alliance, I would make a deal and agree to move LGW under certain conditions, conditions that would make more on par with LHR - not sure exactly what those are but sounds like it needs better connectivity and an additional runway...

Would be a win win for everyone - except the residents around LGW that will have more noise...

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-05-20 12:04:47 and read 2653 times.

Quoting United787 (Reply 53):
I would make a deal and agree to move LGW under certain conditions, conditions that would make more on par with LHR - not sure exactly what those are but sounds like it needs better connectivity and an additional runway...

First, happy 8 years on a.net!   

It would be connections, simultaneous use of both runways (with greater separation), a 2nd terminal, multiple rail lines and possibly more roads. In particular, putting LGW on the high speed rail. Otherwise... they'll stay at LHR.

And, it would have to have an opportunity such as EWR where CO realized they could monopolize the airport. At LGW vs. U2? I think that is unlikely. It would be one alliance breaking off and taking the risk. But we've seen these risks fail before *or* take a long time to pay off. (UA at IAD wasn't an overnight success.)

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-05-20 13:04:07 and read 2580 times.

Quoting TommyBP251b (Reply 49):
why is a two hub system working in NYC with EWR being the star alliance hub and JFK the OneWorld and SkyTeam Hub? I know that Star-Alliance flights are also landing in JFK and viceversa.

A lot of people were skeptical about EWR.

It's taken decades of investment to get it to be the hub it now is.

I suppose one thing it has in its advantage during its development is that it's in an industrial area so no major issues with NIMBYs like the London airports often have. It's also had major highways and rail lines near by. The negative is that the area has the reputation of being seedy and crime ridden. Somehow the commercial imperatives and good policing around the property has reduced that issue, along with the fact that LGA and JFK aren't exactly paradise either.

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: United787
Posted 2013-05-20 13:39:48 and read 2511 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 54):
First, happy 8 years on a.net!

That is like 40 in cool person years, right?

[Edited 2013-05-20 13:40:09]

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-05-20 15:30:33 and read 2374 times.

Quoting United787 (Reply 56):

At least.

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: DolphinAir747
Posted 2013-05-20 19:38:49 and read 2256 times.

Quoting United787 (Reply 53):
If I were SkyTeam or Star Alliance, I would make a deal and agree to move LGW under certain conditions, conditions that would make more on par with LHR - not sure exactly what those are but sounds like it needs better connectivity and an additional runway... Would be a win win for everyone - except the residents around LGW that will have more noise...

The last thing SkyTeam and Star want is for BA to gain lots of new space at LHR and transform it into an airport that can be more of a challenge to FRA, AMS, etc. The other alliances want to keep BA weak.

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-05-20 20:27:04 and read 2235 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 44):
nobody in Star wanted them...or at least not enough to pay for them.

Its the cost. Given half a chance, airlines fly into LHR. Now BMI was too much and thus money losing.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 44):
Nobody else really seems that concerned about it.

VS is very concerned. They just were outbid for the BMI slots.

For now everyone wants to tap into the premium traffic. In Europe, on FRA competes to provide the same level of premium traffic.

Quoting DolphinAir747 (Reply 58):
The last thing SkyTeam and Star want is for BA to gain lots of new space at LHR and transform it into an airport that can be more of a challenge to FRA, AMS, etc. The other alliances want to keep BA weak.

   They also want to compete for the premium traffic. LHR is like LGA, it is a source of premium traffic that everyone wants a piece of but a few airlines will do a better job of capturing the yield.

IMHO, London does not have an airport to provide its true potential. One could 'divide and conquer' by putting the growth at multiple airports. I hope for LHR expansion. Not for BA's sake, but rather connections sake. I actually want to see more competition at LHR.  

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-05-20 22:02:01 and read 2174 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 59):

VS is very concerned.

VS isn't really the best example since they're a niche player at the best of times. LH isn't in any sort of money crunch and was getting rid of BMI more as a bookkeeping exercise. They could have kept the LHR slots and worked out a deal with Star members but the only airline that even piped out about them was VS...and they didn't want to pay anything near their value.

BA and Oneworld are always going to be the busiest at LHR and I don't see any Star members clamouring for more access to the London market. There's lots of other access to the rest of the UK so it is only London that's at issue.

LHR is all about BA....just like FRA is all about LH and CDG is all about AF. In fact, the rest of the EU hubs and alliances are more than tickled that LHR is a mess since that means more traffic through their airports.

That goes the same for the rest of the UK. Gatwick and Stansted are as busy as they can be...and LGW is lobbying for a second runway...and making a good case for it, so they have no sympathy for LHR. Manchester could use more traffic so you can bet they'll encourage the status quo as long as possible.

Premium traffic really isn't where the money is anymore. Ryanair just posted huge profits, while the big boys are struggling.

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-05-21 06:01:05 and read 1954 times.

Quoting United787 (Reply 56):
That is like 40 in cool person years, right?

But they would be less of a niche player if they had more slots.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 60):
LHR is all about BA....just like FRA is all about LH and CDG is all about AF.

For hubbing? Sure. For premium O&D?    I've flown into all three airports on competitors to the airlines you listed.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 60):
Premium traffic really isn't where the money is anymore. Ryanair just posted huge profits, while the big boys are struggling.

Last I looked, premium is down in this economy. Why that is reduced, its still higher profit. The issue is the big boys have too many J seats upfront. Don't get me started on F. Excluding a small number of airlines, the First class market has gone to business jets and its time to just accept that. Premium will recover.

For London, the best economic boost is to expand LHR. Please expand LGW, STN, and LTN too. By expand I imply ground links too.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: hohd
Posted 2013-05-21 06:24:04 and read 1913 times.

LHR has premium demand and no one (Skyteam or Star) will leave LHR now. While FRA and CDG are good hubs, they do not have the premium O&D demand that LHR has and that makes a flight to LHR more profitable from secondary cities accross the world.

[Edited 2013-05-21 06:25:52]

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: r2rho
Posted 2013-05-21 06:27:39 and read 1902 times.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 4):
Which one is forcibly removed from profit making LHR? Can you imagine the legal challenges?

No more legal challenges than, say, the Wright Amendment, the LGA / DCA perimeter rule, etc etc. Just a matter of political will.

Quoting TommyBP251b (Reply 49):
why is a two hub system working in NYC with EWR being the star alliance hub and JFK the OneWorld and SkyTeam Hub? I know that Star-Alliance flights are also landing in JFK and viceversa.
Why could something similar not work in London with LHR being OneWorld and StarAlliance Hub und Gatwick a SkyTeam Hub?

Or MOW with SVO for Skyteam and DME for OW/Star (though Star seems increasingly interested in VKO with the new terminal opening). Or Beijing once the new airport opens (Star at current PEK and SkyTeam at future PEK).

The main difference is that these cities have ample airport capacity to offer (Even EWR / JFK are "ample" compared to LON standards). If LGW had a second runway, perhaps some alliance would consider relocating, specially provided political "incentives". But as things are today, no change can happen in London without new runway capacity - be it in LHR, LGW or elsewhere.

Topic: RE: Semi-official: London Should Have Two Hubs
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2013-05-21 06:55:36 and read 1863 times.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 63):
No more legal challenges than, say, the Wright Amendment, the LGA / DCA perimeter rule, etc etc. Just a matter of political will.

Don't make the mistake to compare regulated USA with the liberal single market in Europe. OK, politics can close airports and destroy valuable infrastructure as long as politicians cannot be held liable for that.

But politics cannot say "you, BA, stay at LHR and you, Skyteam go to LGW and you, Star go to STN" .

That is simply not possible. Slots can be restricted but whoever has a slot has the right to keep and serve that slot.

If there are no more slots available, airlines will go to an airport of their choice, traffic will flow elsewhere. If airlines think they can make money at STN, OK. But politics dictating to go to STN without the chance for the company to make money there is simply not possible.

Compare the DCA / LGA perimeter rule to LCY restrictions dictated by runway lenght and aircraft performance. Thw Wright amendment is kind of dirigism but SWA would have had the chance to go to DFW, ample room there, so they opted for a restricted exclusivity.


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/