Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
LHR Losing The Battle, FRA / CDG / AMS Winning  
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1988 posts, RR: 2
Posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 17085 times:

The former CEO of IATA, G. Bisignani, said in a statement that London Heathrow Airport has lost its position as Europe’s primary hub airport, due to its runway capacity shortage, and the better performance of direct competitors as FRA, CDG and AMS.

The third runway expansion looks more and more necessary every day...


http://atwonline.com/airports-routes...irport-loses-leading-position-1203


Rgds.
G.


80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
74 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinejporterfi From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 445 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 17002 times:

I'm surprised that's the only reason! From a passenger perspective, if I had to choose one of those airport to connect at, there's a good chance it wouldn't be LHR. IMO, they need to rethink their terminals when they create their next Master Plan. It takes a very long time to travel from security to your gate at LHR, plus with only two runways at BA's largest hub, I not surprised that those other airports are performing better (at least in terms of flights being on-time).

User currently offlineLDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1069 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 16778 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):

The former CEO of IATA, G. Bisignani, said in a statement that London Heathrow Airport has lost its position as Europe’s primary hub airport, due to its runway capacity shortage, and the better performance of direct competitors as FRA, CDG and AMS.

Yet, the passengers keep coming.


User currently offlinemiaintl From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 1049 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 16440 times:

The only solution to London's LHR problem is for them to build a new international airport near the Thames estuary which will replace LHR. The terminal layout in LHR is a pain for transiting passengers unless your transiting within terminal 5.

User currently offlinefactsonly From Montserrat, joined Aug 2012, 898 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 15948 times:

Some recent statistics:

AIRPORT MOVEMENTS - last 12 months upto July 2012:

- CDG 505 510 = (1.0)
- FRA 487 321 = 1.5
- LHR) 479 205 = 0.9
- AMS 440 932 = 3.9

PASSENGERS - last 12 months upto July 2012:

- LHR 69 866 219 = 1.7
- CDG 61 747 867 = 2.7
- FRA 57 533 259 = 4.0
- AMS 50 686 048 = 5.1

FREIGHT - last 12 months upto July 2012:

- CDG 1 958 153
- FRA 1 955 822 = (9.5)
- AMS 1 495 932 = (3.5)
- LHR 1 465 754 = (1.7)


User currently offlineraffik From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 1716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 15565 times:

Quoting factsonly (Reply 4):
PASSENGERS - last 12 months upto July 2012:

That completely contradicts the poster's claim that LHR was losing the battle.

Parts of the airport are of a dated design but if you are connecting to most BA services, this will be done within T5.
(Apart from a handful of Middle East destinations that the midhaul 321s serve)

We do need the third runway or a completely new airport to boot but it doesn't seem the government want to spend the cash or commit. Plus there has been a lot of resistance from local house owners and green parliament members who worry that the increase in traffic will result in higher pollution levels.

What really annoys me is the huge increases in airport taxes and duty we have to pay



Happy -go- lucky kinda guy!
User currently onlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7541 posts, RR: 17
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 15330 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
said in a statement that London Heathrow Airport has lost its position as Europe’s primary hub airport

Of course there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

If we take these statistics:

Quoting factsonly (Reply 4):
PASSENGERS - last 12 months upto July 2012:

- LHR 69 866 219 = 1.7
- CDG 61 747 867 = 2.7
- FRA 57 533 259 = 4.0
- AMS 50 686 048 = 5.1

and project the stated growth figures forward ten years this is what we get:

PASSENGERS (000s) 12 months up to July 2022:

- LHR 79,953 at 1.7 per cent growth per annum
- CDG 76,416 at 2.7 per cent growth per annum
- FRA 78,738 at 4.0 per cent growth per annum
- AMS 75,459 at 5.1 per cent growth per annum

Is such a projection using actual annual growth figures as at July 2012 fair? Possibly not. History is not necessarily a guide to the future. But it is all we have got other than an intelligent guess (better known by "experts" as a "forecast").

Nevertheless since current growth rates at LHR are restricted by capacity I would hazard a guess that as more and more 380s come into service, of the four airports LHR stands to benefit most in terms of passenger numbers.

Finally note that on historic projections the airport that will actually decline most in RELATIVE importance is CDG which has (in my figures) been overtaken by FRA by 2022 and will be overtaken by AMS in 2023. And it is also 2023 when FRA edges ahead of LHR in terms of passenger numbers. But that is a long time away.

However the chances of all of this actually happening are not that good. Nothing is certain.


User currently offlineAndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 1017 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 15230 times:

LHR hasn't lost it's position for largest number if passengers, just as a hub. If that's the case - fair enough. Hubbing transfer passengers don't do that much for the UK economy - they don't stay in the country, they don't spend in hotels bars and restaurants or on taxis and other travel etc and hubbing passengers don't do business in the UK. So if Johnny Foreigner goes elsewhere in Europe just to change planes, let them get on with it. Who says LHR really needs to be a (or the) hub for Europe? OK, some ex-LHR routes are currently propped up by transfer traffic, but LHR (complimented by LGW) can stand on its own as an O&D airport for London servings the majority of destinations folks coming from or to the UK need. And as air travel growth continues, if declining transfer traffic makes room for more O&D traffic, that's not a bad result at all.

User currently offlinefinnishway From Finland, joined Jul 2012, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 15179 times:

Quoting miaintl (Reply 3):
The only solution to London's LHR problem is for them to build a new international airport near the Thames estuary which will replace LHR.

I disagree. That would take years or even a decade to develop. New terminal 2 will help LHR, but third runway is necessary. There is many ways to make this situation better, but they need a new runway, if they want to keep LHR as a Europe’s primary hub.


User currently offlineGALLEYSTEW From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 15143 times:

Also, let us not forget. The incredible airport fees and taxes you have to pay to leave LHR. I know several people that fly back to the states from CDG or AMS. It saves $$$.


All Posts are my opinions only.
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1988 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 15115 times:

Quoting raffik (Reply 5):
That completely contradicts the poster's claim that LHR was losing the battle.

It's not "my" claim, I'm just posting here a statement of Mr. Bisignani.

Quoting AndyEastMids (Reply 7):
Who says LHR really needs to be a (or the) hub for Europe?

Willie Walsh ?  

Rgds.
G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1738 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 14959 times:

Quoting jporterfi (Reply 1):
I'm surprised that's the only reason! From a passenger perspective, if I had to choose one of those airport to connect at, there's a good chance it wouldn't be LHR. IMO, they need to rethink their terminals when they create their next Master Plan. It takes a very long time to travel from security to your gate at LHR, plus with only two runways at BA's largest hub, I not surprised that those other airports are performing better (at least in terms of flights being on-time).

Well this is changing:

- Terminal 5 has been voted one of the world's best airport facilities on numerous occasions and has improved the BA experience quite considerably.

- Terminal 2 will offer a similar experience to Star Alliance carriers on its completion and will eventually replace Terminal 1 as well as the old T2.

- Terminal 4 has undergone a big refurbishment and currently provides easy transition for Sky Team carriers and other carriers.

- Terminal 3 is LHR's one remaining problem.. My guess would be that it will be gradually replaced after the Terminal 2 project is complete...

So essentially LHR is getting there... slowly but surely. It is a much better experience than it was 10 years ago and in the next 5 years it will rank up there with the likes of AMS and FRA for passenger service.

The only problem really now is runway capacity... but unfortunately the government are in deadlock.. They see the need for it but bearing in mind there are a lot of Tory voters under the flightpath, it would be tantamount to political suicide. Thena gain if LHR gets moved, who will be the first to complain... said Tory voters.



Next Flights: LHR-OSL (319-BA), OSL-LHR (319-BA), LHR-CPH (320-BA), VXO-BMA (S20-TF), ARN-CPH (738-SK), CPH-LHR (320-BA)
User currently offlineAndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 1017 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 14884 times:

Yes, the reality is that BA and BAA are the only large organisations with an immediate vested interest in trying to continue to sustain LHR as a hub rather than allowing it to become an O&D airport. Again, as air travel continues to grow getting shut of pure transfer traffic to other hubs (taking with them the airport congestion, pollution and lack of significant input to the economy) won't be a bad result as it'll create more room for O&D traffic. Whilst some LHR routes undoubtedly benefit from transfer traffic, I don't believe LHR needs to be dependent on transfer traffic and as growth continues LHR will continue to thrive serving UK markets.

User currently offlinefactsonly From Montserrat, joined Aug 2012, 898 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 14489 times:

Another way to look at the four airports:

NUMBER OF DESTINATIONS served Summer 2012:

- FRA = 277
- AMS = 247
- CDG = 236
- LHR = 162

DOMESTIC UK:
- AMS = 23
- CDG = 14
- FRA = 10
- LHR = 7

CHINA:
- AMS = 6
- FRA = 4
- CDG = 4
- LHR = 3

RUSSIA:
- FRA = 11
- LHR = 3
- AMS = 2
- CDG = 2

USA:
- FRA = 21
- CDG = 21
- LHR = 21
- AMS = 19

AFRICA:
- CDG = 40
- FRA = 28
- AMS = 23
- LHR = 21


User currently offlineGCT64 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 1398 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 14256 times:

Quoting AndyEastMids (Reply 12):
Whilst some LHR routes undoubtedly benefit from transfer traffic, I don't believe LHR needs to be dependent on transfer traffic and as growth continues LHR will continue to thrive serving UK markets.

LHR/London is the one place in Europe that doesn't need to be a hub because of the dominant position London occupies in O&D compared with the rest of Europe.

IATA, BA and the airlines all care about whether somewhere is a hub but from the perspective of the population of very densely populated SE England they would probably prefer that the transfer pax (and their associated noise and polution) go somewhere else in Europe and clog up their airports and airspace.

I think we focus too much here on whether LHR can compete for transfers versus CDG, AMS or FRA when actually it doesn't need to.

(my perspective is as a local LHR resident who wants/needs good global air links and is an aviation enthusiast)



Flown in: A30B,A306,A310,A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A346,A388,BA11,BU31,B190, B461,B462,(..51 types..),VC10,WESX
User currently offlinefcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 804 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 13859 times:

Here is Heathrow's explanation why a hub is a good thing...

34% pax are transitting
Creates many jobs
Creates more routes that wouldn't be sustainable without hubbing

http://mediacentre.heathrowairport.c...x?MediaDetailsID=1105&SizeId=-1%20


User currently offlineoffloaded From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2009, 886 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 13485 times:

Quoting AndyEastMids (Reply 7):
they don't spend in hotels bars and restaurants or on taxis and other travel etc and hubbing passengers don't do business in the UK. So if Johnny Foreigner goes elsewhere in Europe just to change planes, let them get on with it.

Not sure the numerous restaurants, bars, and shops at LHR would agree....

FRA is fighting its own battle.
Frankfurt Night Flight Ban



To no one will we sell, or deny, or delay, right or justice - Magna Carta, 1215
User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3213 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 13278 times:

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 15):
34% pax are transitting
Creates many jobs
Creates more routes that wouldn't be sustainable without hubbing

  

And with that, comes corporate head quarters, distribution centres, and even, believe it or not
factories. Some good need to get to places as fast as possible, or have heaps of staff having to travel the world
to get the good out there. Time is money and the ability to do that is a major economic driver. Look at the US and how
fiercely states fight to maintain Hub Status, and how cities that are hubs like Minneapolis and Atlanta enjoy significant
advantages over their rivals. London is always gonna have lots of direct routes, but think of say secondary cities in China or even in north America. Say somewhere like Phoenix. Would it be sustainable without transfer traffic? At a guess I'd say no, but having it there is very good for british business to get in and out of America fast.


User currently offlinespud757 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 339 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 12911 times:

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 11):
The only problem really now is runway capacity... but unfortunately the government are in deadlock.. They see the need for it but bearing in mind there are a lot of Tory voters under the flightpath, it would be tantamount to political suicide. Thena gain if LHR gets moved, who will be the first to complain... said Tory voters.

Exactly! Not that the Tories need to worry about being in government again for some time (likewise for LibDems); it'll be UKIP / Labour coalition I suspect that still won't make a decision. Heathrow is a political can that keeps getting kicked down the road for after the next general election and so on. We either need UK political parties to get on with the needs of the country, not worrying about the next election (can't see that happening) or we need such major economical and strategic infrastructure decisions to be made by independent non-political bodies rather than HM Government to get anything done. Such a body would be directed by HM Government to set up a panel into, for example, runway expansion in the UK. The panel should have representatives from the local communities affected, from commerce (e.g. IoD), from the specific industry concerned (e.g. airport operator), civil servents from relevent government department (e.g. Dept for Transport), topic experts, legal experts etc with each member having an equal vote in the decision process. Then at least the government can say it's not our decision!

Heathrow needs a 3rd runway to ease capacity issues and allow for weather related congestion.
Heathrow needs direct connection to the UK national rail network, preferably the new HS one. I just find it so odd that major airports like LGW, STN & MAN have national rail stations within terminal complex, but the UK's hub, LHR, doesn't. Domestic air connections in the UK are discouraged by high APD so LHR needs to be connected to the nation by rail.


User currently onlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4739 posts, RR: 39
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 12801 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting spud757 (Reply 18):
Heathrow needs direct connection to the UK national rail network, preferably the new HS one.

The competitors CDG, FRA and AMS already have a large train station including High Speed Trains within the terminal complex. That is a major advantage which Heathrow currently is lacking.

I agree that the third runway should have been built already but the politicians just can not make a decision. Which is too bad.  .


User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3213 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 12598 times:

Quoting spud757 (Reply 18):
Domestic air connections in the UK are discouraged by high APD so LHR needs to be connected to the nation by rail.

I have a fair easier to implement and cheaper solution. Abandon the APD tax. All these wonderful ideas about replacing LHR etc... well i have news for your all. the UK has higher priorities than shutting down functional airports to replace them with new ones. It will come down to this, LHR expands or nothing at all. At least in the short and medium term. Plus what will likely happen to STN and LGW? They'll of course expand! It might even be easier if you want to go down the replacement path of building several additional runways at one of these airports and terminals and shutting heathrow down. That's going to be cheaper than building on water.


User currently offlinehohd From United States of America, joined May 2008, 425 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 12397 times:

Who says CDG or FRA are that much better ? In CDG, you have to catch buses to remote "gates" to transfer. In FRA, the departure terminals are cramped and you have to take trams and walk a lot to transfer. Only at AMS, the transfer is smooth.

LHR would be stronger if not for the high airport taxes and APD (for UK originating passengers).

And the number of cities served by LHR to USA consistently is much higher than any European airport, inspite of what is mentioned above.


User currently onlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4739 posts, RR: 39
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 12236 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting hohd (Reply 21):
In FRA, the departure terminals are cramped and you have to take trams and walk a lot to transfer.

That is why they are building the huge Terminal South (Süd). Which will require airport trains to transfer to the other terminals.

Quoting hohd (Reply 21):
Only at AMS, the transfer is smooth

But the walking distances can also be quite big. Also the "one terminal concept" has its limitations. But of these 4 airports I do like AMS best.  .


User currently offlineincitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4015 posts, RR: 13
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 12164 times:

Quoting AndyEastMids (Reply 7):
Hubbing transfer passengers don't do that much for the UK economy - they don't stay in the country, they don't spend in hotels bars and restaurants or on taxis and other travel etc and hubbing passengers don't do business in the UK.

Transfer passengers help make viable services that would not exist otherwise. When taken together those additional services make a difference in how the local economy grows because it is a factor on where companies decide to locate facilities and hold events. A limited Heathrow is sinking London in the long run.



Stop pop up ads
User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3213 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 12093 times:

what about the heathwick idea? The high speed train linking the two airports in 15 mins, after security to act as a 'seemless' connection?

User currently offlineEurohub From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 238 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 12184 times:

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 24):
what about the heathwick idea? The high speed train linking the two airports in 15 mins, after security to act as a 'seemless' connection?

With successive governments shying away from a third runway, can you really imagine one pushing a new-build high speed line through the South East?



Forget A vs B - Give me E or BAe any day of the week!
User currently offlinereadytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 3265 posts, RR: 2
Reply 26, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 12048 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 22):
But the walking distances can also be quite big. Also the "one terminal concept" has its limitations. But of these 4 airports I do like AMS best

I agree, now if you could get on one of those "Segways" and zip through the terminal from one end to the other. 



you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
User currently onlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9401 posts, RR: 29
Reply 27, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 12374 times:

That's what they proposed at FRA as well, to connect HHN with a HSR or "Transrapid" line.

besides the costs, who's going to pay for the € 50 upwards a single passage would cot, HHN would need a second runway which would be opposed and LGW is up to the linmit and over as well, needing also a second runway.

for the same trouble, a third one at LHR would be reality.

Almost forgot, such connections would fall to the bottom in the reservation systems since it would be listed - example
JFK-LHR-LGW-HEL, all same airport connections would have priority.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineFocker From Netherlands, joined Jan 2011, 153 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 12229 times:

Quoting Eurohub (Reply 25):
With successive governments shying away from a third runway, can you really imagine one pushing a new-build high speed line through the South East?

What is the distance?

You can put the high speed line underground, which is a bit complicated for a 3rd runway on LHR...


User currently offlineSemaex From Germany, joined Nov 2009, 823 posts, RR: 2
Reply 29, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 11725 times:

Quoting factsonly (Reply 13):
USA:
- FRA = 21
- CDG = 21
- LHR = 21
- AMS = 19
Quoting hohd (Reply 21):
And the number of cities served by LHR to USA consistently is much higher than any European airport, inspite of what is mentioned above.

Let's be factual about this topic.
So where does factsonl get his numbers from, and where does hohd get his from? References would be appreciated, but since we're all able to count by ourself, why not just name the 21 (or more) destinations?



// You know you're an aviation enthusiast when you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4237 posts, RR: 1
Reply 30, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 11082 times:

Yeah right, LHR is not going to become redundant as an international airport. I don't think that people are going to go to different airports just because the ex-president says so. The fact that London is a major financial hub and also a major tourist centre attracting millions of people per year to it would still make LHR relevant. I don't want to go to CDG or AMS when I am going to Britain for business. It is still the predominant airport in Europe for connections to around the world and from the numbers quoted in the above posts is number one today and for the foreseeable future will continue to be number one.


Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinetoobz From Finland, joined Jan 2010, 785 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10887 times:

I am really kind of shocked at how much AMS has grown! On that note I will say, I will choose AMS over FRA and LHR and day to connect.

User currently offlinefcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 804 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10859 times:

Quoting Semaex (Reply 29):
be appreciated, but since we're all able to count by ourself, why not just name the 21 (or more) destinations?

I can do the LHR 21 - BOS, EWR, JFK, PHL, BWI, IAD, ATL, DTW, ORD, MSP, DEN, LAS, PHX, SAN, LAX, SFO, IAH. DFW, MIA, RDU, SEA

any prizes?


User currently onlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7541 posts, RR: 17
Reply 33, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10719 times:

According to the very detailed analysis on page 5 here:

http://www.msmaviation.com/publicdocs/Transat_Winter_2011_2012.pdf

of the top twenty trans-Atlantic airport pairs measured by seats offered per week in the Winter 2011-12 timetable, no fewer than eleven, including all of the top four, include LHR.

Of the top twenty airport pairs just two pairs include CDG, only one FRA and AMS does not feature in the top twenty at all.

In terms of seat numbers per week there werre 33,281 on offer between LHR and JFK.

The top trans-Atlantic pair that included CDG was also to and from JFK. But at !2,079 seats this market was little more than one third the size of the LHR/JFK market. At 8,379 the FRA/LHR market was almost exactly a quarter the size of the LHR/JFK market.

So by this metric the claim that LHR is loosing out seems to be sadly misplaced. But as I said before there are lies, damned lies and statistics.

These statistics show that fourteen out of the twenty include the four identified hubs. To complete the picture of the eastern end, the missing six comprise ORY and MAD (2 each) and LGW and TLV (1 each).

In terms of flights per week the top five airport pairs were LHR/JFK (120 flights a week), LHR/EWR (57), LHR/LAX (48) and then jointly in fourth place LHR/MIA and CDG/JFK (47). FRA/JFK was the tenth largest trans-Atlantic pair with 29 flights a week.


User currently offlineskiaplg From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2012, 77 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10662 times:

For business travelers, I don't feel the LHR will have too much of an issue. However, APD is a serious issue, at least for me, and has discouraged me from flying through LHR from EDI before. I can easily stay with family in Paris and get there via Easyjet, then plan my long-haul from there for a saving of at least £100, with the plus of being in Paris a few days. I can see people not wanted to do this though, as it is less convenient.

To me, transitting in LHR and CDG are very similar - if you're transitting with BA in LHR, then it's fine, but transit from BA to AA in Terminal 3 and it's a terrible experience. In CDG, as long as you keep your flights to Air France (and some, but not all SkyTeam), then the transit is bearable.

AMS is my favorite airport to transit in, not only because the airport is conveniently built, but KLM is also quite nice.

Of course, that's just my opinion on what I do to avoid LHR - I'll be going to heathrow for the first time in about a year an a half this december. LHR isn't going to be losing its tourists and businessmen, and the facilities in the airport are improving - I don't think LHR is going to be redundant anytime soon.


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10621 times:

Other than 'my dog is bigger than your dog' type arguments, does anyone care who has the biggest airport, biggest hub, largest number of movements etc. Apart from ahything else, surely it's misleading comparing LHR to AMS and FRA as they are ONE airport cities, which London isn't. For the people of London, it's a massive benefit to have LGW, STN, LTN and LCY as alternatives, rather than having to trek to a 4 runway single hub airport.

As for connecting traffic, apart from transatlantic destinations, LHR is poorly connected for transfers to central Europe anyway, and this would apply even if it had 6 runways.



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offline777klm From China, joined Apr 2005, 530 posts, RR: 1
Reply 36, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10598 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 33):

Although I agree with you that LHR is far from loosing out, you do realize there's more than just transatlantic service?



Next flight: AMS-PEK
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5597 posts, RR: 5
Reply 37, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10510 times:

Quoting raffik (Reply 5):
That completely contradicts the poster's claim that LHR was losing the battle.

It's growing slower than the others. Note "losing", not "lost"

Quoting finnishway (Reply 8):
even a decade to develop

And the rest! Borris Island is, by a liberal estimate, 20 years away.

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 32):
I can do the LHR 21

Soon to be 22 with CLT



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently onlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4739 posts, RR: 39
Reply 38, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10368 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 35):
Apart from anything else, surely it's misleading comparing LHR to AMS and FRA as they are ONE airport cities, which London isn't. For the people of London, it's a massive benefit to have LGW, STN, LTN and LCY as alternatives, rather than having to trek to a 4 runway single hub airport.

I do not think it is misleading at all. LHR is serving Greater London, which lies on a relatively small island (Great Britain) compared to continental Europe. Due to this fact London needs much more air traffic then cities/areas like Greater Paris (which also has two large(r) airports), the whole Frankfurt or Amsterdam and the Randstad area.

But LHR is by far the main airport, the main hub for London and its direct surroundings. And can therefore in my opinion be very well compared to CDG, FRA and AMS without misleading anyone.


User currently offlineincitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4015 posts, RR: 13
Reply 39, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10043 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 30):
The fact that London is a major financial hub and also a major tourist centre attracting millions of people per year to it would still make LHR relevant. I don't want to go to CDG or AMS when I am going to Britain for business.

This is not about being relevant. It is about being number ONE. Rome is the Italian capital, center of the Catholic Church, major tourist city. Rome and FCO are "relevant". Still FCO is not even mentioned in this thread. If you are Ok with LHR being as relevant as FCO, then LHR needs nothing.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 30):
is number one today and for the foreseeable future will continue to be number one.

Don't count on it. There are many examples in the world of one city toppling another over time.



Stop pop up ads
User currently onlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7541 posts, RR: 17
Reply 40, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10020 times:

Quoting 777klm (Reply 36):
Although I agree with you that LHR is far from loosing out, you do realize there's more than just transatlantic service?

Quite. But as this thread is somewhat misleadingly titled ""LHR Losing The Battle, FRA / CDG / AMS Winning" I thought it worthwhile pointing out just how much catching up the alledged "loser" the claimed "winners" need to achieve in what is arguably one of commercial aviations most important market segments.

Here it is worth recognising that geography plays an important part in determining the role of a given airport as a hub in worldwide commercial aviation. With its position near the extremity of north west Europe the role played by LHR as an eastern trans-Atlantic hub is and is likely to remain exceedingly high. FRA is only around 400 miles from LHR but its role is significantly different. I considered this important when reading earlier replies in this thread stating the like of:

Quoting factsonly (Reply 13):
USA:- FRA = 21- CDG = 21- LHR = 21- AMS = 19

The data above paints a very different picture to that suggested by the data I presented.


User currently offlinetommyy From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 66 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 7553 times:

Hi, as a frequent international traveler I try to avoid LHR like the plague, especially if you have to change terminal, it can take you up to a hour, and I am not even mentioning the ridiculous fees they charge for business class passengers just for the pleasure of flying thru the airport

If you compare LHR which is supposed to be the busiest airport in Europe to ATL which is the biggest in the US or the world, you will find that ATL is a pleasure to fly thru with everything from security to terminal changes flowing smoothly to LHR where everything besides for shopping is a disaster


User currently offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1512 posts, RR: 2
Reply 42, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 7097 times:

If you have to lose a battle, this isn't a terrible one to lose. O&D traffic is far more valuable than connecting. And while there is an argument to be made.for a hub allowing destinations a spoke wouldn't, LHR is such huge O&D market for just about everywhere that it's going be affected much less than a secondary city like Atlanta or Munich would be.

User currently offlineZaphodB From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 77 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 7071 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 10):

Quoting raffik (Reply 5):
That completely contradicts the poster's claim that LHR was losing the battle.

It's not "my" claim, I'm just posting here a statement of Mr. Bisignani.

Quoting AndyEastMids (Reply 7):
Who says LHR really needs to be a (or the) hub for Europe?

Willie Walsh ?

He's entitled to his opinion.
One of his predecessors, Bob Ayling didn't think connecting traffic was worth chasing.
If you look at TATL fares connecting through someone else's european hub vs. fares for direct flights I'm inclined to agree with Bob - especially when your O&D market is the center of the known universe   

[Edited 2012-12-04 16:38:06]

User currently onlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9401 posts, RR: 29
Reply 44, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6565 times:

I was once on a flight LHR-EWR (B777)with 29 passengers including myself, 5 of us in club world. I was connecting from FRA- I would not say that the connecting pax made the day for BA, but the additional revenue was certainly welcomed.

Even a large O&D market cannot fill all flights from its own catchment area and why change a system that works quite well all over the world? The rest of Britain minus GLA EDI and MAN is already forced to connect elswehere in Europe because of lacking capacity at LHR. That should be reason enough to start building a third runway PDQ.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineraffik From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 1716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 45, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6252 times:

I connected for the first time coming from SFO to LHR via FRA and I was shocked at FRA. It was a very dark and dingy airport- low ceilings and quite gloomy.

I have connected at CDG which was a complete nightmare- I missed one flight and that was with nearly two hours between arrival and departure.

AMS is a great airport but I don't think LHR has too much to worry about.



Happy -go- lucky kinda guy!
User currently onlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4739 posts, RR: 39
Reply 46, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6055 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting raffik (Reply 45):
I was shocked at FRA. It was a very dark and dingy airport- low ceilings and quite gloomy.

The old terminal at FRA has these characteristics. But still they do not bother me that much, I still like it and was not shocked when I saw it for the first time. The newer terminal on the East side however is much, much nicer, I will give you that.  .

And now they are building the huge terminal South which will increase the capacity of the Frankfurt airport with another 30-35 million passengers per year.


User currently onliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2634 posts, RR: 1
Reply 47, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6023 times:

Quoting AndyEastMids (Reply 7):
LHR hasn't lost it's position for largest number if passengers, just as a hub.

   Exactly. A lot of people in this thread are missing that. Of course LHR is and will remain a major airport. Of course it will continue to post high pax numbers. It's London! It has all the O&D and high-yield pax any airline could ever wish for!

But it is starting to lose as a hub. This will become more evident once the crisis is over and traffic growth starts again - elsewhere. Already, people from UK regions are transferring via other EU airports due to lack of LHR capacity. Over time, LHR will become more and more of an O&D airport. It will start to lose connectivity as some destinations previously sustained by connecting flights become unviable.

But...if people in the UK are fine with LHR losing its hub position and becoming an O&D airport, that's fine too. There will be other places to transfer. London will however lose connectivity to the rest of the world.

Quoting offloaded (Reply 16):

FRA is fighting its own battle.
Frankfurt Night Flight Ban

It's quite ironic - now that the 4th runway has solved the capacity issue and would enable FRA's further development as a world gateway, they are shot in the foot by the night ban. FRA's hub status is certainly under threat as well.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 48, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5967 times:

Quoting tommyy (Reply 41):
and I am not even mentioning the ridiculous fees they charge for business class passengers just for the pleasure of flying thru the airport

There is no APD when you fly thru.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 47):
It's quite ironic - now that the 4th runway has solved the capacity issue and would enable FRA's further development as a world gateway, they are shot in the foot by the night ban. FRA's hub status is certainly under threat as well.

FRA is a much better hub with the 4th runway and extended night ban than it was before.


User currently offlinebabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 49, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5890 times:

Quoting miaintl (Reply 3):
The only solution to London's LHR problem is for them to build a new international airport near the Thames estuary which will replace LHR.

That's exactly what i think. You can't go on adding capacity to LHR by building more runways, soon enough you'll run out of land to build on. It's also time we took the pressure of unemployment off Kent or Essex.

Whenever I have to transit in Europe I will normally do it through Paris CDG. Air France have great in-flight catering and CDG doesn't look like a shopping centre with aircraft like LHR or LGW.

I know airports make money through commerce but there need to be a balance of comfortable seating and access to shops.


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5874 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 38):
Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 35):
Apart from anything else, surely it's misleading comparing LHR to AMS and FRA as they are ONE airport cities, which London isn't. For the people of London, it's a massive benefit to have LGW, STN, LTN and LCY as alternatives, rather than having to trek to a 4 runway single hub airport.

I do not think it is misleading at all. LHR is serving Greater London, which lies on a relatively small island (Great Britain) compared to continental Europe. Due to this fact London needs much more air traffic then cities/areas like Greater Paris (which also has two large(r) airports), the whole Frankfurt or Amsterdam and the Randstad area.

But LHR is by far the main airport, the main hub for London and its direct surroundings. And can therefore in my opinion be very well compared to CDG, FRA and AMS without misleading anyone.

But LHR isn't the only London airport, and that's a key difference to AMS and FRA.
From wiki for 2011
LHR 69m passengers

LGW 34m
STN 18m
LTN 10m

Thus the 3 other main London airports combined carry near as many as LHR, and all have space to grow. If FRA was to overtake LHR for example, it still would be well below the total for the London region. Combined the 4 airports carry 130m passengers from 5 runways. Why is this considered inferior to a single airport with 5 runways, when the majority of passengers aren't transit passengers anyway?



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlinespud757 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 339 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5820 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 44):

BA also offer UK connections via LHR at other regional airports than the ones you've mentioned:- NCL, LBA, ABZ, BHD.

Of course with a third runway BA (& possibly VS) could expand domestic (CTA) connections, particularly those not on the mainland; IOM, JER and GCI have no service. But is there sufficient demand with enough yield for these connections to be profitable use of new slots that a 3rd runway could offer? Direct HS rail connections with [BA / VS etc] code shares into LHR would probably be a more efficient use of slots for certain UK mainland cities that don't warrant, by distance, connections by air: Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham, Cardiff, Manchester.


User currently onlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9401 posts, RR: 29
Reply 52, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5727 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 48):
FRA is a much better hub with the 4th runway and extended night ban than it was before.

Tell that to the people who got stranded because their aircraft had to taxi back to the stand at 23h01. last night they were lucky, winter weather and de-icing delayed a flight but the bureaucrats were merciful, they allowed taked off at 23:00:04 and that is no joke, 4 seconds needed clearance by the state of Hesse.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 53, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5644 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 52):
Tell that to the people who got stranded because their aircraft had to taxi back to the stand at 23h01. last night they were lucky, winter weather and de-icing delayed a flight but the bureaucrats were merciful, they allowed taked off at 23:00:04 and that is no joke, 4 seconds needed clearance by the state of Hesse.

Talk with the people who used the additional daytime movements.


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 54, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5568 times:

The last 3 times I went to the UK this year, I flew through FRA, CDG, and AMS....and one of the times I was going to LON.

I avoided most of the APD bite on J class tickets with a little jaunt in Y, and avoided the hassles of LHR as well, using LCY when going to LON, and otherwise flying into GLA and EDI.

FRA will become more marginalized in the future as a hub due to their slot restrictions/curfew.

CDG is just a terribly designed airport....almost as bad as LHR.

AMS and DXB are rapidly becoming the defacto international hub airports for most of the UK that are not LHR captives..

The downside to AMS being the long walks.


User currently offlineShuttle9juliet From UK - Scotland, joined Jul 2010, 192 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5482 times:

I cannot ever see LHR ever getting a third runway now? The governments not got the balls to do it. It's laughable because creating a third runway, creates employment, keeps LHR up with AMS, FRA ect..Actually by the time a third runway was built LHR would still be behind...They really need at least two or three runways not a short one planned at Simpson..All these do gooders complaining about environment issues and noise,blah blah blah, these are the people are holding us up.I bet the same people complain because in 15' 20 years time there is no employment or import,export in the country.Just do what France,Germany do, bloody build it...We are a laughing stock in this country sometimes...

User currently offlinefactsonly From Montserrat, joined Aug 2012, 898 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5494 times:

Some contributors to this discussion mis-interpret the statement by Mr. Bisignani. He did NOT state LHR (or the London air passenger market) is or will be smaller than FRA, CDG or AMS, for this is clearly not the case. What Bisignani stated is that London Heathrow Airport has lost its position as Europe’s primary HUB airport due to its runway capacity shortage. That's all.

This was a deliberate political statement in support of BA's & VS' battle for LHR expansion. BA standing most to gain from LHR runway expansion as it is considered the main 'hub' operator at LHR.

To Mr. Bisignani a HUB is an air traffic transfer point, where global air connectivity results from deliberate airline scheduling. Of the four airports he compared, LHR has the least 'air connectivity by design' as it serves the fewest destinations and has the lowest runway capacity. Of course BA offers connections through its Terminal 5, but much of this is 'connectivity by chance' rather than by deliberate design. LHR's one arrival and one departure runway - together with the runway slot system - do not permit BA the same scheduling density of flights as witnessed at AMS, FRA and CDG. These airports have multiple arrival and departure runways, thus permitting connectivity by design in transfer banks, similar to other true hub airports such as ATL, DFW, DTW, MSP, DEN.

This is most apparent in LHR's ability to meet the UK's domestic demand for international air travel. The below figures indicate that a sizeable portion of the UK's demand for air travel is leaking away to other 'hub' airports, as these airports are in a better position to offer air connections at prices LHR can not match. With just 7 domestic routes LHR misses out on serving the UK at large. As LHR becomes increasingly an O&D airport it follows BA in becoming more and more "London Airways at London Airport'. Is this what the United Kingdom economy needs?

Quoting factsonly (Reply 13):
DOMESTIC UK - Summer 2012:
- AMS = 23
- CDG = 14
- FRA = 10
- LHR = 7


As indicated by others a constrained airport such as LHR witnesses higher yields (sounds great, but...), this also means less competitive pricing in the global market place. Millions of price sensitive Britons leak away to other airports and this process does not stop. Witness the new UK routes to 'hub' airports that continue to open, as AMS, FRA and CDG have the runway capacity.

Quoting spud757 (Reply 51):
Of course with a third runway BA (& possibly VS) could expand domestic (CTA) connections, particularly those not on the mainland; IOM, JER and GCI have no service


In early 2013 Blue Airways will commence JER-AMS-JER and in April 2013 KLM starts MSE-AMS-MSE, together with the re-opened EMA-AMS-EMA (Fly-Be) this takes the number of UK-AMS routes to 26. Remember that each additional spoke to a hub offers a multitude of connecting possibilities. So Manston Kent does not gain one destination (AMS), but it gains 250 destinations around the world making these regional flights economicly possible. For many years now UK businesses have been flying ABZ-AMS-NWI and MME-AMS-SOU or even BRS-AMS-MAN as LHR is unable to provide British businesses with the air connections demanded.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 50):
But LHR isn't the only London airport, and that's a key difference to AMS and FRA.


So this discussion is not about the size of the market - London is by far the biggest - but about the 'connectivity' offered by the four airports. Why do airports and hub airlines chase connectivity, because each additional flight lowers the cost of the entire system and translates into direct and in-direct jobs and general economic activity and welfare. It creates the environment in which business can flourish.

This is were LHR misses out.


User currently onlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4739 posts, RR: 39
Reply 57, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5443 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 50):
But LHR isn't the only London airport, and that's a key difference to AMS and FRA.

It is, but you are missing the point here. I requote what I said:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 38):
LHR is serving Greater London, which lies on a relatively small island (Great Britain) compared to continental Europe. Due to this fact London needs much more air traffic then cities/areas like Greater Paris (which also has two large(r) airports), the whole Frankfurt or Amsterdam and the Randstad area.

The geographical situation of England (or Great-Brittain) is what makes more then one airport for the greater London area necessary. But that has nothing to do with the hub-function LHR, CDG, FRA and AMS have and where they are in a battle with each other.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 50):
Why is this considered inferior to a single airport with 5 runways, when the majority of passengers aren't transit passengers anyway?

It is not considered inferior. Again I am afraid you missed the point of what is being discussed here.

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 54):
FRA will become more marginalized in the future as a hub due to their slot restrictions/curfew.

Well, they are building the new terminal so that they can accommodate up to 80-85 million passenger per year. That is by no means "marginalizing" in my book.  .

Quoting factsonly (Reply 56):
So this discussion is not about the size of the market - London is by far the biggest - but about the 'connectivity' offered by the four airports.

It is exactly that.

Quoting factsonly (Reply 56):
This is were LHR misses out.

Well, not missing out. Not by a long shot. But LHR is starting to loose market share as a central hub in Western Europe.

[Edited 2012-12-05 08:57:50]

User currently offlineAndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 1017 posts, RR: 2
Reply 58, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5409 times:

The only direct economic benefit to be derived from hubbing (as opposed to O&D) is to the airlines that hub at the airport, to the airport itself, and to the tenants and other service organisations supporting the hub. There is very little direct economic benefit outside of the immediate airport area from hubbing passengers as, by definition, hubbing passengers don't go out of the airport and spend money or do business in the local economy. LHR, supporting by far the biggest O&D market of those mentioned, is best positioned to sustain air services to the majority of destinations regularly demanded by O&D passengers. For anyone else outside of the LHR catchment area, hubbing (or a ground journey) is already a fact of life and they might as well hub in AMS or FRA or DXB than LHR. Whilst passengers prefer direct flights, surveys have shown that most are quite prepared to accept one connection to get to their destination - and in this case that could be someone travelling from the UK regions connecting in mainland Europe, or indeed a LHR originating passenger who may have to connect in a foreign capital to get to a foreign regional destination. LHR will sustain a core set of high demand routes without the O&D traffic and if those who wish to connect do so elsewhere then that leaves room for growth of O&D traffic without growing the airport significantly. I do believe that a third runway at LHR is needed, but primarily to reduce congestion not only on the ground but also at the holds at BNN, BIG, BPK and OCK etc... I don't think that the UK should be investing in massive airport expansion at LHR just to support travellers who feel like connecting through the UK

User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4237 posts, RR: 1
Reply 59, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5385 times:

Quoting Eurohub (Reply 25):
With successive governments shying away from a third runway, can you really imagine one pushing a new-build high speed line through the South East?

My imagination is running on overdrive with thinking about the high-speed line running from LHR to the SE England and may be not only SE England but also the entire southern portion of the Island. The expansion of the railway station at LHR if that is possible would accommodate the extra traffic but I don't think that expanding the railway station at LHR is not feasible.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently onlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4462 posts, RR: 76
Reply 60, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5316 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting factsonly (Reply 56):
Why do airports and hub airlines chase connectivity, because each additional flight lowers the cost of the entire system and translates into direct and in-direct jobs and general economic activity and welfare.

  

Quoting AndyEastMids (Reply 58):
The only direct economic benefit to be derived from hubbing (as opposed to O&D) is to the airlines that hub at the airport, to the airport itself, and to the tenants and other service organisations supporting the hub.

Money gained by all the above is benefit to the country's accounting... or it isn't ?

Another illustration of the state of affairs is seeing the relative importance of each airportt.
Thus, we could identify what the traffic growth is hiding ( in this case the decline of LHR importance compared to the western Eu trio ).

In 2000, in terms of passengers,
LHR : 64,606 x1000
CDG : 48,246 74.6%
FRA : 49,360 76.4%
AMS : 39,606 61 %

In 2005,
LHR : 67,915
CDG : 53.798 79.4%
FRA : 52,219 76.9%
AMS : 44.163 65.0%

In 2010,
LHR : 65,884
CDG : 58,167 88.2 %
FRA : 53.009 80.4 %
AMS : 45,271 68.7 %

As 2010 could be a fluke, due to the "drop"' in traffic at LHR (industrial movements ), these are the figures for 2011 :

LHR : 69,433
CDG : 60,970 87.8 %
FRA : 56,436 81.3 %
AMS : 49,754 71 %

The future ? CDG and FRA are planning on 85 to 95 million passengrers' traffic, AMS could grow... LHR is at 95 % + on runway utilisation.
But, hey ! if they're happy with O/D traffic only, who am I to complain ?
Of course, there's a final question experts will have to answer about the same picture but the UK outside the EU..........

[Edited 2012-12-05 09:40:58]


Contrail designer
User currently offlinefactsonly From Montserrat, joined Aug 2012, 898 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5053 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 60):
In 2000, in terms of passengers,
LHR : 64,606 x1000
CDG : 48,246 74.6%
FRA : 49,360 76.4%
AMS : 39,606 61 %

In 2005,
LHR : 67,915
CDG : 53.798 79.4%
FRA : 52,219 76.9%
AMS : 44.163 65.0%

In 2010,
LHR : 65,884
CDG : 58,167 88.2 %
FRA : 53.009 80.4 %
AMS : 45,271 68.7 %

A perfect illustration of what Bisignani said ....and it continues today, see 2012 below:

Passengers last 12 month - July 2012:

- LHR 69 866 219 = 100%
- CDG 61 747 867 = 88,4%
- FRA 57 533 259 = 82,3%
- AMS 50 686 048 = 72,5%


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 4924 times:

Quoting Shuttle9juliet (Reply 55):
I cannot ever see LHR ever getting a third runway now? The governments not got the balls to do it. It's laughable because creating a third runway, creates employment, keeps LHR up with AMS, FRA ect..Actually by the time a third runway was built LHR would still be behind...They really need at least two or three runways not a short one planned at Simpson..All these do gooders complaining about environment issues and noise,blah blah blah, these are the people are holding us up.I bet the same people complain because in 15' 20 years time there is no employment or import,export in the country.Just do what France,Germany do, bloody build it...We are a laughing stock in this country sometimes...

But then it's not London that has the unemployment problem, but rather the rest of the UK. How would 2 new runways for LHR help, say Scotland or the North of England more than, say BA trying to create a hub outside of London?

What benefit does the UK get from even more people flying via London, other than a bit of spend in the terminals? If LHR was located in the middle of a desert, or the sea (as per Boris Island) it would cause little nuisance, but it isn't. It's in the middle of a highly crowded urban area, the flightpaths affect large parts of London with their noise and pollution. Expanding LHR, just so that BAA and BA can make more money from people who never even leave the airport is rightly not going to be waved through.



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25366 posts, RR: 22
Reply 63, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4770 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
London Heathrow Airport has lost its position as Europe’s primary hub airport, due to its runway capacity shortage, and the better performance of direct competitors as FRA, CDG and AMS.
Quoting raffik (Reply 5):
Quoting factsonly (Reply 4):
PASSENGERS - last 12 months upto July 2012:

That completely contradicts the poster's claim that LHR was losing the battle.

No it does not. Bisignani's statement was referring to LHR's position as a "HUB" which implies connectivity. A much higher proportion of LHR passenger traffic is O&D which by definition is originating or terminating their trip at LHR, compared to FRA/CDG/AMS where the proportion of connecting traffic is higher than LHR.

Connectivity also requires a large number of destinations. All 3 of the other airports mentioned have had far more directly-served destinations than LHR for many years, meaning far more one-stop connecting markets than when connecting via LHR.


User currently offlineShuttle9juliet From UK - Scotland, joined Jul 2010, 192 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4579 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 62):

Hi AIrbusA6

Yeah I see your point ,I know that LHR is in a highly built up urban area, flight path over the city ect ect, but it does seem that everything we do in the U.K takes years of political wrangling ( T5) example , now another runway.

Also I am sure the government does make a bit of a benefit through passengers going through Londons airports, it's called APD. I totally agree though that there should be another hub also...Anyway most people in the north,Scotland too, tend to avoid LHR and filter through various Middle East hubs with the help of their local airline... 


User currently offlineAndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 1017 posts, RR: 2
Reply 65, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks ago) and read 4509 times:

Aviation policy has missed a trick really... HS2 should go straight underneath LHR and offer links to Birmingham, Manchester, the East Midlands, Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow. Then, ban domestic flights and use the freed up capacity for international route development. With checkin and bag drop at HS2 rail stations, even Glasgow wouldn't have a significantly longer travel time by rail compared to air when the journey into/from the city to airport is included.

The third runway is going to remain a huge political football due theirs environmental impact. The only other sensible solution I can see is to build a secure terminal at Northolt, a high-speed secure rail link between the LHR terminals and Northolt, and treat the Northolt terminal as another airside facility for LHR with checkin and bag reclaim done at LHR itself (I.e. no landslide access at Northolt). Then, move some narrow-body services over to Northolt.


User currently offlinedanielkandi From Denmark, joined Sep 2012, 61 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4431 times:

I like t5, but they lack the same thing that AMS does, a proper steakhouse haha! , joking aside. I pick AMS because like CPH, it's easy to get around, although trains underground of AMS would be nice. Long walks. Or more quicktracks like in YYZ. Those walkways are ace! Noisy but quick! I rarely pick LHR now. As BA screwed me over, I see no point. Plus AMS has everything most travellers could want.


Flown on : md80, md95, Avro RJ85/100, Q400, Atr42/72, a319/320/321, a332/a333, a343/346, b733 and up, 757, 747, 767 and
User currently onlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7541 posts, RR: 17
Reply 67, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4234 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 62):
What benefit does the UK get from even more people flying via London

I think you may have answered your own question:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 62):
Expanding LHR, just so that BAA and BA can make more money

These are both British companies. They employ British workers - more business, more income, more jobs. They pay British Corporation Tax. Their employees pay British Income Tax and National Insurance. Their employees spend most if not all their income in the UK paying VAT to the British government on all their purchases excepting expenditure on food, children's clothes and reading materials.

When a traveller flies from, say, Canada to, say India, with BA then the expenditure (with BA) on their ticket is significant. A ticket from YYZ to DEL flying out on 6 and back on 22 January can be booked today for:

Y Class: Canadian $ 1,070 (£672)

W Class: Canadian $ 2,233 (£1,402)

J Class: Canadian $ 5,160 (£3,240)

So if three J Class passengers every day were to book to fly BA between Canada and India at the above (mid-week and therefore not the highest) fares the British economy (in the form of our GDP) would be approximately £3.25 million larger than if they did not. So the expendiure by such passengers on their tickets and on anything spent while transitting LHR directly adds to the size oif the Britis h economy.

It is simply not true that if the above happened - and it does - that it would be "just so that BAA and BA can make more money". If it were then the same could be said by any money spent in the UK by you, me or any other British resident. But in this case the expenditure made in Canadian Dollars is even more important than our own local Sterling expenditure. We need foreign currency to buy imports ranging from food to raw materials for our manufacturing industry. Without suchforeign income these would be necessities that the UK could not afford.

It has been suggested elsewhere in this thread that LHR is an O&D operation and handles less transit traffic than other European hubs. I have no current data that disputes this. However in a Press Release titled "A new British Airways takes off today" dated 10 June 1997, BA claimed that 60 per cent of their passengers werre not British. At the same time they claimed that 40 per cent of BA passengers arriving a LHR on an international flight connected to another BA international flight without going land-side.

In looking at the O&D situation this is clearly an understatement of the proportion of BA passengers then using LHR as a hub. There are two reasons for this. It clearly excludes those passengers arriving at LHR and spending the night at one of LHR's many hotels before boarding another flight the following day. It also excludes all passengers arriving at LHR on a BA domestic flight and then immediately departing on a BA international flight and, of course, those arriving on an international flight and then departing on a domestic flight.

Quantifying the numbers falling into these two groups is difficult. Suffice it to say that approximately ten per cent of all BA's passengers fly on domestic routes and that a far from insignificant proportion of those passengers are likely to be transferring to or from an international flight.

As I mentioned above it has been claimed in this thread that the proportion of O&D traffic at LHR is significantly higher than at other European hubs. As my data is both limited and is 15 years old I would much appreciate a source for the data on which these claims are based.

According to the CAA the number of passengers travelling to and from LON on scheduled flights in 2011 was 126,966,767. This seems to me to be a very high figure if it is overwhelmingly O&D traffic. Compare it with, for example, the number of scheduled passengers handled at the UK's next busiest airport, MAN. There the equivalent 2011 figure was around one-tenth of this figure at 13,614,261. And if a significant proportion of LON traffic is transfer traffic, I would expect most of such traffic to be at LHR where the transfer opportunities are much greater. Further the operations of airlines like FR (who are dominant at STN) and U2 (who are by far the largest LGW and LTN operator) simply do not attract transfer passengers.


User currently onlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13138 posts, RR: 100
Reply 68, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4113 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Six months ago I did a thread on the most connected airports. Scoll down to post #29 for the updated table:
Airports With Greatest Number Of Connected Cities (by lightsaber May 14 2012 in Aviation Polls)

To be blunt LHR no longer has so many connections as to be the 1st choice for a connecting passenger.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 63):
No it does not. Bisignani's statement was referring to LHR's position as a "HUB" which implies connectivity.

   LHR is becoming an O&D airport. So be it... I think not expanding is silly, but that is just my opinion.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6669 posts, RR: 11
Reply 69, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3950 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 6):
Finally note that on historic projections the airport that will actually decline most in RELATIVE importance is CDG which has (in my figures) been overtaken by FRA by 2022 and will be overtaken by AMS in 2023. And it is also 2023 when FRA edges ahead of LHR in terms of passenger numbers. But that is a long time away.

One year doesn't mean much. I have no idea what will happen but one thing is certain, CDG is not capacity restricted by a long shot.

Quoting finnishway (Reply 8):
I disagree. That would take years or even a decade to develop. New terminal 2 will help LHR, but third runway is necessary. There is many ways to make this situation better, but they need a new runway, if they want to keep LHR as a Europe’s primary hub.

The third runway itself is a decade away if it happens, a new airport, we're looking at 2030's at best.

But opponents make any prediction difficult, right now there are anarchists from all over the world stopping the start of the building of Notre-Dame-des-Landes airport to replace NTE . That project started 40 years ago.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinetheginge From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3591 times:

Quoting AndyEastMids (Reply 65):
Aviation policy has missed a trick really... HS2 should go straight underneath LHR and offer links to Birmingham, Manchester, the East Midlands, Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow. Then, ban domestic flights and use the freed up capacity for international route development. With checkin and bag drop at HS2 rail stations, even Glasgow wouldn't have a significantly longer travel time by rail compared to air when the journey into/from the city to airport is included.

That is what should happen, like FRA airport has a decent high speed railway line in to it where people not only transfer from train to plane but from train to train, a proper transport hub. This should happen at LHR but the useless politicians have decided that initially HS2, if it ever gets built, will by pass Heathrow and people will be forced to change trains near central London, which is an unatrractive proposition.


User currently offlinefactsonly From Montserrat, joined Aug 2012, 898 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3178 times:

Quoting danielkandi (Reply 66):
I pick AMS because like CPH, it's easy to get around, although trains underground of AMS would be nice.


AMS, CDG and FRA all have integrated airport railway stations for both high speed international and local trains located under/at the airport.

The Netherlands, France & Germany have a strong national transport policies focussed on public transport mode integration (bus, train, airplane) thus building connections and easing the use of (cheap) public transport. Their continued investment in runways is based on the believe that good global and regional connections facilitates trade and industry and thus jobs and public welfare.


User currently offlinestarrymarkb From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2011, 162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2803 times:

Quoting factsonly (Reply 71):
The Netherlands, France & Germany have a strong national transport policies focussed on public transport mode integration (bus, train, airplane) thus building connections and easing the use of (cheap) public transport. Their continued investment in runways is based on the believe that good global and regional connections facilitates trade and industry and thus jobs and public welfare.

I wish we had such a policy. But here Public Transport is expected to compete with itself even where it wouldn't benefit the passenger (and where there have been mergers/transfers that would give network benefits they seem to get blocked by the authorities)

The main rail route from London to South Wales and the West of England passes about 1.5 miles from the Northern Perimeter, yet there is no station with transit link to the airport. Passengers either have to change at Reading for a coach or go into London and catch an airport train back to the airport.

Quoting miaintl (Reply 3):
The only solution to London's LHR problem is for them to build a new international airport near the Thames estuary which will replace LHR. The terminal layout in LHR is a pain for transiting passengers unless your transiting within terminal 5.

Problem there is Heathrow also serves the Southern half of England, so while access from Kent might improve the rest of the South will be adversely affected


User currently offlinefactsonly From Montserrat, joined Aug 2012, 898 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2362 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 67):
It has been suggested elsewhere in this thread that LHR is an O&D operation and handles less transit traffic than other European hubs. I have no current data that disputes this. However in a Press Release titled "A new British Airways takes off today" dated 10 June 1997, BA claimed that 60 per cent of their passengers werre not British. At the same time they claimed that 40 per cent of BA passengers arriving a LHR on an international flight connected to another BA international flight without going land-side.

Though some airports publish their ratio of O&D versus transfer traffic, it is hard to find credible data for airlines. But with some serous Google work, I did find the below data and failed to find a lot as well. Can anyone help?

- AMS = TOTAL 50 Mill. pax. = 20 Mill. Transfer and 29 Million O&D = 40% vs 60%
- KLM = TOTAL 29 Mill. pax. = 20 Mill. pax. Transfer and 9 Mill. O&D to AMS = 69% vs 31%

- CDG = TOTAL 61 Mill. pax - no breakdown of transfer
- AF = TOTAL 59,5 Mill. pax. - no breakdown of transfer

- FRA = TOTAL 56 Mill. pax = 26 Mill. Transfer and 30 Mill. O&D = 54% vs 56%
- LH = = TOTAL 65 Mill. pax.

- LHR = TOTAL 69.4 Mill pax. = 24 Mill. Transfer and 54.4 Mill. O&D = 34.5% vs 64.5%
- BA = TOTAL 34 Mill. pax = 13 Mill. Tranfer and 21 Mill. O&D = 38% vs 62%

We can conclude the following:

LHR has slightly more O&D traffic (64.5%) versus AMS (60%), FRA (56%)
LHR has slightly less Transfer traffic (34.5%) versus AMS (40%), FRA (54%)

However KLM is very dependent on transfer with (69% transfer pax.) versus BA (38%), LH & AF ??


source: airline and airport websites.


User currently offlineGCT64 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 1398 posts, RR: 1
Reply 74, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2298 times:

Quoting factsonly (Reply 73):
I did find the below data and failed to find a lot as well

But a good effort none the less, and adds some factual perspective to the discussion   

It shows why LHR (54M O&D = more than 50% bigger than the nearest contender) has less need to be focused on being a hub than the other European major airports.

In addition LHR shares the London O&D with LGW, STN, LTN, LCY etc. (and can compete against those for increased O&D market share - for example LTN has 10M O&D, STN has 18M O&D - without even worrying about winning transfer pax) while AMS has all the Amsterdam O&D and so has no more local market share to secure.



Flown in: A30B,A306,A310,A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A346,A388,BA11,BU31,B190, B461,B462,(..51 types..),VC10,WESX
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...
"Delta Bulls Losing The Battle On Message Boards" posted Fri Jun 18 2004 01:51:44 by InnocuousFox
Who's Winning The Battle Of BWI-BOS posted Wed May 19 2010 16:20:09 by 727LOVER
Gulf Air Inflight Chefs LHR/FRA/CDG A Good Idea? posted Mon Feb 3 2003 16:51:03 by GF-A330
FRA, CDG Or Lhr? Most International Destinations? posted Mon Aug 5 2002 13:24:53 by Godbless
Anyone Here Work In FRA Or LHR On The Ramp? posted Wed Oct 3 2001 12:24:37 by Abhi
Delta To Increase CDG/AMS Services In 2013 posted Fri Oct 5 2012 05:49:58 by panamair
Why No DL 744 Service To LHR During The Olympics? posted Sun Aug 12 2012 20:00:55 by AV8AJET
European Heavies At LHR During The Olympics posted Sat Jul 14 2012 06:29:40 by DAL763ER
Is MIA Losing The LH A388? posted Wed Feb 8 2012 21:07:25 by fpetrutiu
Diversions On UA 757: CDG/AMS-IAD Will It Last? posted Wed Oct 26 2011 15:46:55 by TOMMY767