gingersnap From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2010, 892 posts, RR: 5 Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 months 12 hours ago) and read 6902 times:
Yeah I saw that on BBC Question Time last night and I agree.
For the most part, there is nothing more than political point scoring going on. I see whoever it was trying to ramp up support during the show by suggesting Manchester could be the way forward (being as the show was taped in Manchester yesterday). But they clearly fail to realise the total lack of capacity.
I remember one of the panel asking why airlines hadn't put much larger aircraft on existing routes, whilst neglecting to understand why that doesn't happen. I was more surprised at the total lack of support for ANY expansion at all.
david_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7257 posts, RR: 14 Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 12 hours ago) and read 6776 times:
Part of the problem is BA.... for years they preferred passengers to route over LHR at the expense of the non-stop regional and long-haul routes that existed, including those operated by their partner airlines. To see them getting behind airlines in looking at regional routes indicates that they acted against the interests of the regions *and* themselves.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6481 posts, RR: 8 Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 11 hours ago) and read 6587 times:
Ok so what is he going to do in the interim - while he is around - use his owners hub capacity on the mainland proper or attempt to push more traffic to other London airports or heaven forbid someplace as far away as Manchester?
It would mean increasing their domestic service, but ..................
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11878 posts, RR: 100 Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 11 hours ago) and read 6530 times:
Sadly I must agree. Britain is forfeiting its historical place in global transportation. Without connections, long haul from LHR will be 'brittle.' In other words, small changes in supply/demand will shift the profitability of the route. Look at NRT. Lack of expansion there enabled ICN to become a major hub. Now, when crossing the Pacific, only us old foggies think of NRT as a hub. The same will happen of LHR.
TK is looking to build a 5-runway airport to replace IST. When that happens, they will grow.
QR is adding their 2nd runway at DOH.
EY will eventually have two runways at AUH (but later).
The range increase of the NEO and MAX will help them expand and fill those new runways.
Not to mention we will see a 'step change' in TATL travel if either Boeing or Airbus is able to make their narrowbodies TATL capable (efficiency improvements and a higher MTOW for more fuel). We already know the CS100 will be TATL capable. That is going to be a 'game changer' for TATL that is much more significant than the 752. PHL, CLT, IAD, BOS, and possibly other airports will benefit.
I'm sad to see this lack of expansion. But self inflicted wounds do not count.
Quoting gingersnap (Reply 1): I remember one of the panel asking why airlines hadn't put much larger aircraft on existing routes, whilst neglecting to understand why that doesn't happen.
It is as if people do not understand that new flights help stimulate demand for connections that allow that upgauging...
At a time when air travel growth, by some measures, will double faster than the historical trend.
affirmative From France, joined Jul 2009, 337 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 11 hours ago) and read 6516 times:
In all this discussion going on about LHR, restrictions, third runway and so on I'm wondering if anyone have really done a good research on the alternatives. Not being english I might have a different (maybe wrong or flawed) view on things but I can't see why BA couldn't do what LH is doing with multiple hubs. The London area has three viable airports in LHR, LGW and STN. If they divide traffic out to these airports the total flights having to leave from LHR would be lower. Instead of three flights to NYC from LHR within a really short timeframe one could be departing f.ex LGW. Oneworld partners could feed into that airport as well. And for some people in London it would make sense in terms of the commute as well. I would also have an effect on road traffic around LHR. Sure it would take some investment to bring everything up to standard at LGW and STN but I think it would work. I think a second rwy at LGW is easier to make and it would make for a formidable airport next to LHR.
Nimbys will bother you wherever you want to develop things like this. But London as a metropolitan area will be in trouble if people doesn't start to get creative soon.
PW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2161 posts, RR: 12 Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 6253 times:
Hmmm, at first I'd read that Walsh had resigned!
I'm wondering wheater BA will now have to shift focus to larger planes; i.e. = more A380's, 77W, 351. Off course they gained a healthy number of slots from BD, but without another Heathrow runway, aircraft size will have to increase.
Even LHR-JFK which is said to be very much frequency driven is already at 7 (!!) daily BA 744 rotations (+1 daily 777). . .
[Edited 2012-10-05 13:54:18]
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
LH does not operate out of 3 airports at Frankfurt. Comparing LH's split between FRA & MUC to BA operating hubs across LHR, LGW & STN is comparing apples to oranges. And that's before you even get to the fact that BA tried this already - they had a dual hub strategy across LHR & LGW in the 90s. It didn't work.....
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6481 posts, RR: 8 Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 9 hours ago) and read 6015 times:
Quoting PW100 (Reply 8): I'm wondering wheater BA will now have to shift focus to larger planes; i.e. = more A380's, 77W, 351.
Ok, so lets say you switch NYC from 6 flights to 3 A380's, how do you then open up or serve CLT for example which may not be able to support a 777 much less a A380, you will have 3 free slots but now you also need a lower capacity a/c.
Alternative is to just let someone else operate the route.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 5): It is as if people do not understand that new flights help stimulate demand for connections that allow that upgauging...
aa1818 From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Feb 2006, 3364 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 9 hours ago) and read 5981 times:
I'm sure this has been discussed before, but would a realistic solution be a high-speed link between LHR and LGW. How long would the transit time take? Would it be possible to get the transit time down to say 30 minutes via an underground or overground bullet train? Perhaps in addition to continuing the fight for a 3rd runway, BA ought to fight for a high-speed link between LGW and LHR to make transfers more seamless.
jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7811 posts, RR: 8 Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 months 9 hours ago) and read 5975 times:
Quoting PW100 (Reply 8): I'm wondering wheater BA will now have to shift focus to larger planes; i.e. = more A380's, 77W, 351. Off course they gained a healthy number of slots from BD, but without another Heathrow runway, aircraft size will have to increase.
Even LHR-JFK which is said to be very much frequency driven is already at 7 (!!) daily BA 744 rotations (+1 daily 777).
Many "one-time" steps to release slots at LHR from short haul have already been done, Eurostar trains have taken much of the traffic to Paris and Brussels. KLM and Air France have "loaned" some slots to Delta. BA has done many small deals to acquire slots like back in 2003 they puchased Avianca's slot at LHR. The growth in demand has been from the east with the Asian airlines like Cathay going from zero( they flew to LGW) to four flights daily. The Middle East Airlines have managed to acquire sizeable portfolios. Before 1991 there was no Virgin at LHR, now they fly about 30 long hauls daily.
BA has expanded frequencies to manu US cities they have flown to for years. While in 1990 cities like Miami, Boston & LAX had one flight daily now they have 3 daily, tripple daily service requires 9 slots just for those three American cities. This expansion of frrequency has happened accross the entire BA timetable to all Continents. While at one time JNB was flown as an extension of Nairobi, its now double daily. BA has had to make choices in short haul to find slots for all those 777 and 744's.
First of all, to mitpick, NYC is at 11 daily rotations (7x 744 to JFK, 1x 777 to JFK, 3x 777 to EWR).
I did not mean to suggest that JFK will be reduced in frequency. However with average yearly traffic growth of 3 - 5%, I can easily see several JFK rotations go from 744 to 380, if infrastructure at JFK can handle that.
What I'm saying is that, without a third LHR runway, BA future growth per city pair will generally be obtained more by aircraft size upgaging than by increased frequencies. Off course smaller airplanes will be required for smaller markets, not all markets will sustain A380, 77W, or 351. Some shifting of frequencies from short haul to long haul is to be expected.
Without an adiditonal runway at LHR, BA average number of seats per departure will grow. That does not mean solely more A380's, but one would expect that larger share than 12 (+7) of 50+ 744 fleet will ultimately see replacement by A380.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6481 posts, RR: 8 Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 months 6 hours ago) and read 5710 times:
Quoting PW100 (Reply 13): I did not mean to suggest that JFK will be reduced in frequency. However with average yearly traffic growth of 3 - 5%, I can easily see several JFK rotations go from 744 to 380, if infrastructure at JFK can handle that.
This no doubt will happen, yes they just got additional slots from the BMI purchase but they will be used up pretty quickly. JFK route with high traffic is ideal for consolidation around larger a/c, if BA's One World partner AA get their house in order they can provide the additional frequencies on smaller capacity a/c.
Quoting PW100 (Reply 13): BA future growth per city pair will generally be obtained more by aircraft size upgaging than by increased frequencies.
That's the rub, the more high capacity a/c in the fleet to optimize the limited slots and departures, the more selective one must be in evaluating new growth markets, and that does not take into account some routes which may be seasonal.
How many new markets will BA have to avoid due to infrastructure restrictions.
Quoting PW100 (Reply 13): Without an adiditonal runway at LHR, BA average number of seats per departure will grow.
Yes, the issue for BA as a carrier who has made LHR their primary hub is how much they will adjust their fleet to accomodate the limited expansion available.
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5258 posts, RR: 30 Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 2 hours ago) and read 5243 times:
Nothing will ever change in regards to London airports and we'll be hearing the same thing for the next 20 years...just like we've been hearing it for decades already. There are lots of potential solutions but either the NIMBY's won't let it happen or the people whose careers are invested in the status quo won't let it happen.
Either way, nothing will happen...forever.
The 3rd runway is out because the NIMBY's...and different groups don't want any more traffic at Gatwick or Stansted. The estuary is out because nobody wants it, (it's too far for the west siders, thousands of jobs depend on the other airports and it might endanger the rare Thames Estuary flying goat).
Manchester is...well...not London so that's out.
Everybody wants change but nobody wants change. The saving grace is that over the creek, it's getting at least as tough on airports as it is in London and environs.
B777ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 548 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4139 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 5): Look at NRT. Lack of expansion there enabled ICN to become a major hub. Now, when crossing the Pacific, only us old foggies think of NRT as a hub.
NRT has already become a place no intl airline wants to go to. HND is the new golden child for Tokyo as it is much closer to city center. U.S. carriers are currently fighting over the 1 available slot at HND. NRT is what LGW is to the UK. A place to go to but not the preferred place. If carriers like DL could move their entire operation from NRT to HND they would do it in a second.