Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Auction For All LHR Slots  
User currently offlineVs25 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 66 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3853 times:

I'm interested in people's views on solutions to the LHR slot problem. I hope I can say that we are all in agreement that the lack of US-UK open skies is not good for competition and that competition is a good thing.

Now we all know that there is a terrible lack of slots at LHR and that the chances of a 3rd short runway being built anytime soon are very very slim. So, what I propose is that the UK Govt (or BAA) "take back" all the slots at LHR, that includes BA, Virgin and BMI and then auction the slots off to the highest bidders. Obviously the incumbents won't like this at all and claim that they "own" the slots, however it would open the airport to competition. If CO, NW, DL, etc want slots they will have to bid for them like VS and BA. The incumbents would have another couple of years (say 2008) and then it would go into the auction. Each pair of slots could be rented for 3-5 years from BAA/UK.gov

I know that some of the most of the US carriers are in no position for a bidding match, but BA and VS are hardly sitting on piles of cash. If an airline thinks they can make money from a LHR route then let them bid. (The LHR slots already have an unofficial "trading" price of £1 million each) They will have a price that they can afford that would enable them to run a profitable service on the route. Let the market decide.

What does everyone think?

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3792 times:

That is in direct violation of both EU law and ICAO agreements.

User currently offlineVs25 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 66 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3760 times:

Restricting competition is also against EU law and laws can be changed.

My point is, would this be a feasible way to fairly open up competition at LHR ?


User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3699 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A feasible idea but i don't think any of the parties involved will get enthusiastic about buying slots. Not least UA and AA who inherited the vacant Heathrow slots from Pan Am and TWA. IIRC BA has never bought any of it's slots at LHR (only some from UAL recently) and VS were given them as they were naturally a home carrier. So i cannot see any of the airlines buying slots, not least UA or AA who alone would need to be allocated at least 30 to 35 take-off and landing slot allocations. And if the unofficial trading price of a slot is a million quid, then that alone would amount to 30-35 million GBP, don't think United has that sort of money lying around.




In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineBuckieboy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3676 times:

Can I be a little controversial?

I know carriers (especially US ones) want to maximise their income and LHR may be a good way to do it. But as a passenger, I try and avoid LHR as much as possible. Because I live in Switzerland, if I need to go to London proper, I will choose LCY and in transit, AMS, FRA and even CDG would be much more comfortable for me.

Plus, the BA T1/T4 thing doesn't work for me at present, picking up and dropping off hire cars is a pain, and T2 is a claustrphobic dump, even for someone who is barely 5'. Maybe T5 will improve matters, however, I do not like LHR at all at present.


User currently offlineVfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3964 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3563 times:

They cannot be auctioned off as from a legal point of view they cannot become an airline's property (it is diffrent in the US).

User currently offlineTrappedInMKG From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 4 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3505 times:

This would not benefit US carriers, because a) no US airline can afford it, with the exception of *maybe* NW or CO, and b) LOTS of US travelers are scared to death of LHR. I regularly hear it referred to as a "third world country in and of itself."

User currently offlineWhitehatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3499 times:

The issue of the UK-US treaties concerning LHR operations, and Heathrow slots, are two entirely separate matters. There seems to be some confusion in this thread over the basics, that permission to fly the route is needed before any new carrier can try to obtain LHR slots.

User currently offlineGKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24913 posts, RR: 56
Reply 8, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3492 times:

IMO, BA should be given more slots.
I believe they only have about 41% of all slots, whereas LH and AF at their respective hubs have about 60 or 70% of all slots



When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineJoFMO From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3443 times:

@Kirk:

But that is not a legal point. That is BA's foult. Why did they choose to hub at an airport that doesn't have enough slots? They should have bought more slots two decades ago as they still were available.


User currently offlineRtfm From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 415 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3355 times:

JoFMO - now let's think - why did BA chose to hub at the main airport of the capital city of their home country (which incidentally sits in one of the most densly populated parts of Europe).....?

Unfortunately the commercial air transport industry has grown quicker than LHR's infrastructure (and far faster than than the decision making ability of successive UK governments...)

As for taking all the slots away and then auctioning them off - well apart from the various legal reasons already mentioned, how about the legal challenges from all the airlines that currently hold those slots? How about the fact that there are enough dumb ideas floating around airline regulation at the moment without adding another one? How about the fact that those airlines that have held those slots for years and have invested time and money in building up the traffic and business and their own operations to support them? Maybe the government should try that with all the houses in your street....?


User currently offlineAussie747 From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 1163 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3268 times:

"The issue of the UK-US treaties concerning LHR operations, and Heathrow slots, are two entirely separate matters. There seems to be some confusion in this thread over the basics, that permission to fly the route is needed before any new carrier can try to obtain LHR slots."


You are so right there QF just paid $55million AUD for their additional two pairs of daily slots into LHR. Yet from BAA it still only has permission to start only 7 of those 14 flights into and out of the country . It will have to renegotiate the remaing 7 (to avoid losing it's slots that it purchased it's using the services of Flightlines BAE146's to run LHR/MAN feeder serices).



User currently offlineVs25 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 66 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3152 times:

So assuming that all the relevent bilateral treaties are in place (ie Bremuda II goes the way of the dinosaurs), how does a new carrier (eg CO, NW, DL) get slots at LHR? BA, VS and BD are going to be too happy giving up their slots for competition, so why not take all the slots from everyone and start again on a level playing field?

To the best of my knowledge slots do not have the same rights under law as land. If you don't use your slots, you will lose them, which is not the same for land. Even under land law the govt can issue a complusory purschase order for your land.

Its not possible to please all the interest groups. BA, VS and BD won't give up their slots without a fight. Carriers from other countries want access to over crowded LHR... so let all the carriers bid for the rights to fly to LHR for a number of years. In essence, rent the slots. This would undoubtably be a money spinner for BAA/UK Govt. You could even get rid of the landing fees/pax charges and just rely on the auctioning of slots every few years.

Just a thought...


User currently offline747firstclass From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3111 times:

I can tell you straight away that this proposal will simply not fly with US carriers or the US govt. No foreign airline has ever paid as much as one cent for any slot ay any US airport. Period. BA would find itself paying for slots at JFK,LAX,ORD etc. etc. I repeat this plan will not go over with the US govt. or US carriers.

User currently offlineA350 From Germany, joined Nov 2004, 1100 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3040 times:

I think it's a great idea to let the market decide which flights are the most important ones. It will probably also lead to more longhaul connections, while the frequency of european connections mights be reduced.

AFAIK, the european commission wants to make a slot auction mandatory for all airports with slot restrictions. This will take time, but at the end, it will make sure that any slot will be used in a way to produce a maximum of wealth out of it.

A350



Photography - the art of observing, not the art of arranging
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9511 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2999 times:

747firstclass,

I agree that there would be large repercussions. If the BAA decide to issue an auction and carriers with very little cash on hand (yes I know they have about a Billion dollars, but that isn't available to purchase assets) like AA and UA would end up losing many of their slots or might suffer more consequences. The United States government would not let that stand, and would likely enforce some pretty hefty fees to BA and other UK carriers.

Here is a hypothetical way that the auction could work is that if all of the slots were purchased at market price (as government are required to do when repossesing land or property) and then were auctioned off. UA and AA would be paid for their slots and would likely just buy them back, but if another carrier desperately wanted some slots it could outbid others like BMI or UA. The outbid carriers would lost a slot, but would be paid for it so they will get needed cash. It could be a good infusion of cash at some carriers, and allow anyone that has enough money to get into the market.

Overall I think that is a horrible idea though. Having BAA rake in the money from financially troubled airlines is like them shooting at the person that feeds them. In my opinion, the UK should not profit out of something like an airport. If there was a huge profit opportunity in owning an airport, then you would see private investors building airports and charging high fees for them. Overall if a carrier desperately wants a slot now, they can get it if they are willing to pay enough. That is how economics control things, and it is logical. Having too much government intervention is not a good thing. But then again, someone is justifying Bermuda II.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12082 posts, RR: 18
Reply 16, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2897 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

If the LHR slots were auctioned off then it would be unfair for the airlines that can not afford to spend big money on slots.

User currently offlineA350 From Germany, joined Nov 2004, 1100 posts, RR: 22
Reply 17, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2834 times:

If the LHR slots were auctioned off then it would be unfair for the airlines that can not afford to spend big money on slots.


That's market economy: if a resource is rare, it is sold to the one who makes the largest economic use out of it, i.e, who can pay the highest price. When airlines think it's not woth it, they can well change to STN.

A350



Photography - the art of observing, not the art of arranging
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
BA Offering LGW Slots Plus Cash For LHR Slots? posted Mon Apr 22 2002 20:06:26 by Crosswind
LHR Slots For Competition posted Thu Sep 6 2001 20:10:26 by Co/ba
For All You DCA Spotters... posted Thu Sep 28 2006 14:53:22 by Positiverate
For All The Airlines TV Commercial Freak Out There posted Thu Sep 14 2006 09:14:07 by YLWbased
For All You "I Want Jetblue To Fly Here" A.netters posted Wed Apr 26 2006 03:48:29 by Garri767
Working For BA - LHR Or LGW? posted Mon Apr 3 2006 01:03:28 by BFS
Winglets For All AA 737's posted Thu Mar 30 2006 03:49:22 by Dtw9
Fixing Cayman Airways: Once And For All posted Mon Mar 20 2006 03:00:11 by Caymanair
Why Is JFK Still Using 31R For All Ops? posted Mon Feb 13 2006 17:32:11 by RJpieces
Any Possibilities For CX LHR-YYZ Or MAN-YYZ? posted Sat Jan 28 2006 18:35:30 by Klyk1980