Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Moving Non Alliance/Hub Traffic Away From Heathrow  
User currently offlinegilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3023 posts, RR: 2
Posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5037 times:

I think I might have too much time on my hands at the moment, and trying to become an armchair CEO...  

I have been thinking and wondering of ways of how air traffic and passenger growth can continue in the London area for the short to medium term until a plan for a new runway or airport is decided... I was thinking of Heathrow Airport or even possibly the government taking quite controversial and some might consider a draconian plan...

That is to ban all non alliance or non-hub traffic from using Heathrow Airport, even possibly going one step further and banning airlines where the majority of their traffic is just point to point... Looking at airlines using LHR, you could possibly save between 50 and 100 landing/take-offs a day.

Just a few airlines that come to mind, Emirates, Qatar Airways, Etihad, Oman, Gulf Air, Malaysian, Air Malta, Cyprus Airways, Vueling, Jet Airways, Kingfisher, El Al, Sri Lankan, Air Seychelles...

If airlines wanted to maintain a presence in the London area, they would be made to use LGW, STN or LTN! Stansted currently has spare capacity for around 8-10 million passengers (without any extensive work taking place), while Luton and Gatwick also have spare capacity...

The likes of STN and LGW are more than capable of handling aircraft like the A340, 77W, 747 and A380!

By doing this, it would free slots up for LHR to fly to destinations that the likes of BA, VS and existing alliance members are screaming out to serve. China and the far east are destinations that come to mind. It also gives the airport some breathing space, to not be constantly running at 100% capacity, like it does now.

While some airlines forced out of LHR might drop routes, frequencies or downsize aircraft, it will still give them the opportunity to fly from another London Airport, to serve the London market which is one of the largest in the world. Also from those airports, they could grow as much as they like.

Incentives could also be offered to these airlines, like reduced fees or a lower rate APD (Air Passenger Duty) to fly from these other airports. Also I think the government should look to charging a higher rate of APD if passengers choose to fly through Heathrow and to possibly look at introducing the charge to passengers connecting through the airport. As the fee is only charged, if the UK is the final destination on your ticket.

Another idea could be ban aircraft under a certain size(eg a 757 or larger) to ensure maximum usage of the airports facilities!

These are pretty extreme measures, but I was just thinking of ways capacity could be spread across London's Airport's, and stopping airlines considering LHR as the only airport they want to serve in the region. As we need to be realistic, no airport or additional runway is going to be built in London area for at least the next 20 years, and we need to allow new routes come to the UK, as we are already loosing ground to the likes of AMS, FRA, CDG, etc...  

While UK likes to be business friendly and would be fiercely opposed by the EU, we see measures in place in other countries. For example at LGA and DCA, where routes over a certain distance are not allowed.

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFaddyPainter From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2010, 131 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5015 times:

Sounds like a good plan, if you want to open both BAA and the government up to huge litigation proceedings by the displaced airlines.

Unfortunately there is no easy answer to the mess that the South East faces at the moment when it comes to aviation.


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2184 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4997 times:

Aside from the fact that this is completely unfair to anyone who is not BA, VS, or their partners, how does it make sense? LHR is the preferred London airport. Point to point/non hub traffic is generally people flying from/to London. Shouldn't we therefore be encouraging pushing HUB traffic (aka CONNECTING traffic) to other London airports? After all the people connecting don't care at all about how convenient the airport is to the city or what not, just how convenient it is for connecting.

Therefore I suggest we move all VS/BA/alliance traffic to the other London airports and make LHR point to point only.  



Quoting gilesdavies (Thread starter):
By doing this, it would free slots up for LHR to fly to destinations that the likes of BA, VS and existing alliance members are screaming out to serve. China and the far east are destinations that come to mind. It also gives the airport some breathing space, to not be constantly running at 100% capacity, like it does now.

Why should BA be allowed to fly to KUL (a city in the far east) from LHR but MAS (an example of an airline you said can move) forced to use another London airport?

[Edited 2013-01-18 06:12:25][Edited 2013-01-18 06:15:14]


[Edited 2013-01-18 06:15:31]

User currently offlinegilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3023 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4934 times:

Quoting FaddyPainter (Reply 1):
Why should BA be allowed to fly to KUL (a city in the far east) from LHR but MAS (an example of an airline you said can move) forced to use another London airport?

I don;t really want to dwell on MA, but in your example, because BA's hub is Heathrow and MA choose not to be a member an alliance, so that would assume the majority of the traffic they are flying destined for or originating from the London area.

Quoting Polot (Reply 2):
Point to point/non hub traffic is generally people flying from/to London. Shouldn't we therefore be encouraging pushing HUB traffic (aka CONNECTING traffic) to other London airports?

LHR is already set up as an airport handling huge numbers of connecting traffic, while the other London airports aren't to the same extent. But this still gives Londoner's access to the markets from LHR.

I never said these would be easy decisions to make, but I am just thinking of ways we can maximise London's EXISTING airport capacity, and open up new markets/routes, while also at the same time easing some of the pressure off of LHR's existing facilities.

We need to face up to the fact, while the government sits and does nothing about capacity in the South East of England, we need to use what we have to it's fullest!


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2184 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4893 times:

Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 3):
I don;t really want to dwell on MA, but in your example, because BA's hub is Heathrow and MA choose not to be a member an alliance, so that would assume the majority of the traffic they are flying destined for or originating from the London area.

So an airlines alliance choices should dictate where they fly? JFK is also very crowded and is a large DL (not a BA partner) hub- maybe we should kick BA out of there so DL has some more room to expand. EWR is also crowded and a very large UA (not a BA partner) hub, we should kick BA out of there too. BA can serve SWF for their New York passengers. It is really a win win for everybody. NYC traffic gets reduced, and since BA will be offering less flights to NY they have more room in LHR for their needs  

Again, really if you are going to do this the logical thing would to make the other airports more conductive for connections and make LHR an O&D airport only.


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3254 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4823 times:

Quoting gilesdavies (Thread starter):
That is to ban all non alliance or non-hub traffic from using Heathrow Airport,

Giles that's the key reason LHR is profitable and you're way open to legal challenges, airlines pay millions to get into LHR.
A complete non starter.

I think where people fall down is they misunderstand the market, and that word is rarely used (!), how it behaves and what needs to happen for the businesses involved to make money. It's not about airport capacity, there's loads at STN and LGW is not as full as they'd like to believe. The primary issue is constrained hub connectivity at LHR, unless you understand that you are trying to solve a secondary problem. Airlines have no problems flying to London. it's accessing high yields at the main hub, LHR that's tricky.

There won't be a new airport, we haven't got the money, it's not a good comparsion to Hong Kong and our politicians are working on a model of government that doesn't work.


User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25311 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4296 times:

Quoting gilesdavies (Thread starter):
Just a few airlines that come to mind, Emirates, Qatar Airways, Etihad, Oman, Gulf Air, Malaysian, Air Malta, Cyprus Airways, Vueling, Jet Airways, Kingfisher, El Al, Sri Lankan, Air Seychelles...

I expect most of those carriers sell many interline connections via LHR. Why should they be discriminated against because they're not in one of the major alliances?


User currently offlineWingtips56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 391 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4228 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 6):
Quoting gilesdavies (Thread starter):
Just a few airlines that come to mind, Emirates, Qatar Airways, Etihad, Oman, Gulf Air, Malaysian, Air Malta, Cyprus Airways, Vueling, Jet Airways, Kingfisher, El Al, Sri Lankan, Air Seychelles...

I expect most of those carriers sell many interline connections via LHR. Why should they be discriminated against because they're not in one of the major alliances?

Well, just to take that apart, 3 of those mentioned above are joining the oneworld alliance (QR, MH, UL), and at least two others codeshare over LHR with AA alone. Everybody is buddied-up with someone, so while it sounds interesting at a very high-altitude view, it doesn't work once you start thinking about it more.

The idea of "wayports" had been floated in the U.S. in the last 15-20 years, taking all the connections out to the middle of nowhere to make all the noise they wanted. But most flights don't operate at close to 100% connecting traffic, and as noted, London is a key destination as well as transfer point, so you'd be wasting capacity if you separated local and connecting airports. I like LHR for the easy options to get into the City....LGW less so, and STN/LTN are not easy for a visitor to London. LCY is only good for the O/D traffic. I also use LHR more for the connections; in fact with the APD having gone so ridiculously high, I don't stopover in London anymore, like I used to on a combination trip.



Worked for WestAir, Apollo Airways, Desert Pacific, Western, AirCal and American Airlines
User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 697 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3898 times:

Heathrow is such a major force in world airline economics....for instance I believe the whole A380 programme may not have ever finalised if London's main airport had unlimited 24/7 availability, was not slot-restricted and could easily expand anytime...on the order of CDG or DFW.

Quoting gilesdavies (Thread starter):
was just thinking of ways capacity could be spread across London's Airport's,

On the one hand you have a British government which (rightfully) is motivated to protect British interests, which means protecting BA. On the other hand you have an ancient, sprawling, densely populated metro area lacking large-scale-project development potential for lack of space. On yet the other hand (foot?) you have public and regulatory hostility, or at best indifference, to the needs of civil aviation. For instance, Emma Thompson crusades against expanding LHR.

The status quo becomes the only workable option.

I predict nothing major will happen airport-wise in London for the rest of our lives.



Pu


User currently online1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 1004 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3789 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pu (Reply 8):
I predict nothing major will happen airport-wise in London for the rest of our lives.

I think you maybe right !

Quoting Pu (Reply 8):
On yet the other hand (foot?) you have public and regulatory hostility, or at best indifference, to the needs of civil aviation. For instance, Emma Thompson crusades against expanding LHR.

Mmm...great actress but I wonder how she got to Los Angeles to collect her Academy Awards ?


User currently online1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 1004 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3751 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I actually think that the only airlines that should transport passengers between any two countries should be airlines registered in those two countries.

In other words I would ban transfer traffic globally.

I think we would have a much healthier and balanced airline industry then with countries able to field good national carriers.

  

We seem to be heading to point where we have a few 'greedy hog' carriers poaching everyone else's passengers !

  


User currently onlinetheginge From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3667 times:

If you did any of that chances are the Governments of those countries would then penalise UK Airlines in retaliation.

User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2184 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3642 times:

Quoting theginge (Reply 11):
If you did any of that chances are the Governments of those countries would then penalise UK Airlines in retaliation.

  
Especially since allowing some airlines to serve LHR while prohibiting others would be breaking quite a few bilateral agreements- including the EU-US open skies one.


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3254 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3497 times:

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 10):
In other words I would ban transfer traffic globally.

Do you have any business or commercial experience?

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 10):

We seem to be heading to point where we have a few 'greedy hog' carriers poaching everyone else's passengers !

Good heavens, that's all a bit socialist. They are succesful businesses that peope choose to book with. Economies of scale means BA and Emirates can book from A to B via C. What you are suggesting is a return to high fares and regulations that were removed for very good reason.


User currently onlinetheginge From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3421 times:

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 10):
I actually think that the only airlines that should transport passengers between any two countries should be airlines registered in those two countries.

In other words I would ban transfer traffic globally.

I think we would have a much healthier and balanced airline industry then with countries able to field good national carriers.

How would people get anywhere if that happend, how would you get from say LAX to a city in Europe that has no direct flights? Buy seperate tickets?

And don't forget there is not enough passenger traffic between some cities to support a service serving those passengers alone, eg a flight from A to B needs passengers coming from C, D and E to make it viable.


User currently online1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 1004 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3410 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 13):
Do you have any business or commercial experience?

I was joking skipness......as if !

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 13):
Good heavens, that's all a bit socialist. They are succesful businesses that peope choose to book with. Economies of scale means BA and Emirates can book from A to B via C. What you are suggesting is a return to high fares and regulations that were removed for very good reason.

You are totally correct of course. Shouldn't it read though....A to C via B ?

One must remember though that the advent of alliances like Oneworld, Skyteam and Star and the joint ventures within them are actually all about achieving what I have stated ? (in a roundabout sort of fashion)


User currently offlineLX138 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2009, 396 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3205 times:

The issue is suppy/demand, market forces and artificially playing with the market demand where it is not necessary.

The OP says 'to allow BA et al to fly to the up and coming places they are screaming out to serve' - actually if 30 new slots became suddenly available for use to BA do you think they would whack on another JFK rotation, another LAX frequency and perhaps a few more to MAD or ARN? The face is BA is serving the places that their assets can make them the most money. Over the last 2-3 years BA has continually dropped several 'exciting/up and coming' cities because they were obviously not as profitable as one thought they might.

Additionally, if you expanded LHR to offer another 50 slots - the day it happened they would all be snapped up and you'd be back to 100% capacity almost instantly.

I have in the past suggested an incentive programme to encourage other carriers to spread their services more across the other non-LHR south east airports and that's what should be encouraged.



StarWorld Team - The ultimate airline alliance
User currently online1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 1004 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2980 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LX138 (Reply 16):
Over the last 2-3 years BA has continually dropped several 'exciting/up and coming' cities because they were obviously not as profitable as one thought they might.

Which one's are they ?

There are numerous locations currently on BA's radar. Chengdu and a return to Seoul hint at which direction from LHR needs attention.

Quoting LX138 (Reply 16):
I have in the past suggested an incentive programme to encourage other carriers to spread their services more across the other non-LHR south east airports and that's what should be encouraged.

No airline will effectively 'gift' business to airlines remaining at LHR by vacating LHR.

Quoting LX138 (Reply 16):
The OP says 'to allow BA et al to fly to the up and coming places they are screaming out to serve' - actually if 30 new slots became suddenly available for use to BA do you think they would whack on another JFK rotation, another LAX frequency and perhaps a few more to MAD or ARN?

They may well do. Some routes are indeed a licence tio print money for BA so they'd be stupid not to. However, they now have the freedom to without sacrifice satisfy markets in all directions.


User currently offlineLX138 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2009, 396 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2766 times:

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 17):
Which one's are they ?

SJU, DAR, SSH, TBS ...going or gone.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 17):
No airline will effectively 'gift' business to airlines remaining at LHR by vacating LHR.

Of course not, that's why it's the governments responsibility to regulate this situation.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 17):
They may well do. Some routes are indeed a licence tio print money for BA so they'd be stupid not to. However, they now have the freedom to without sacrifice satisfy markets in all directions.

No they don't have the freedom. They have extra slots, that's all. I haven't heard of SCL, KUL, SZX, NKG etc yet  



StarWorld Team - The ultimate airline alliance
User currently online1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 1004 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2697 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LX138 (Reply 18):
SJU, DAR, SSH, TBS ...going or gone.

DAR ? DAR was around for decades. Hardly a flash in the pan.

SJU and SSH.......holiday destinations.

With respect LX138 they are not really good examples are they.

Quoting LX138 (Reply 18):
Of course not, that's why it's the governments responsibility to regulate this situation.

They can't get involved in something like this it just doesn't happen and besides....the routes would still flop in favour of LHR departures/arrivals regardless of government intervention.

Quoting LX138 (Reply 18):
No they don't have the freedom. They have extra slots, that's all. I haven't heard of SCL, KUL, SZX, NKG etc yet

KUL has been mentioned. SCL...with Latam joining Oneworld (most likely) I can't imagine any decision being made until that development has been finalized and the mess at IB sorted out. SZX.......BA obviously thought CTU was a better route for starters. ICN has been re-introduced too.

You also seem to be forgetting that 'eqipment' has to be avaiable for these new routes.

It's getting the slots that was the hard thing...that has been accomplished..........the equipment will arrive in time.

( God and Boeing willing !! )


User currently onlinerutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 2995 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2653 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Thinking out of the box.

Tories win a working majority in 2015 . Airport report received but publish date delayed as they prioritise submitting the UK to EU referendum in May 2016. Electorate provide mandate to leave EU in Jan 2017.

Air Transport policy returns to UK Parliamentary control in full.

Airport report published in mid 2017 with findings that the R3 remains the preferred option however a detailed billion pound study and costed proposal for a replacement airport is required.

In the mean time the UK Air Transport committee re-introduce limitations on entry and/or regional access at designated airports (Read LHR/LGW/STN)

Further the requirements for environmental impact surveys and planning regulations are significantly changed, allowing for quicker decision processes.

LHR resubmit the plans for R3 against a costed new airport scheme.

Tories being the cheapskates they naturally are finally sign off R3 again in 2018 as only viable option.

Ten years late but with a cabinet devoid of current faces.

To pay for it and as a result of costing reviews and budget overruns on phase one of HS2 , extension north of Birmingham shelved.

[Edited 2013-01-20 06:36:26]

[Edited 2013-01-20 06:37:06]

User currently onlineLJ From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4429 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 21 hours ago) and read 2405 times:

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 20):
Air Transport policy returns to UK Parliamentary control in full.

The EU doesn't determine the Air Transport policy of a particular country other than it mandates/requests that it doesn't go into bilateral agreements on its own. An enlargement of LHR is still something the UK decides on.



Quoting rutankrd (Reply 20):
Tories being the cheapskates they naturally are finally sign off R3 again in 2018 as only viable option.

Aren't many of LHR opponents those having big houses near LHR and probaly vote conservative anyway??


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8372 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 2238 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting gilesdavies (Thread starter):
That is to ban all non alliance or non-hub traffic from using Heathrow Airport, even possibly going one step further and banning airlines where the majority of their traffic is just point to point... Looking at airlines using LHR, you could possibly save between 50 and 100 landing/take-offs a day.

Just a few airlines that come to mind, Emirates, Qatar Airways, Etihad, Oman, Gulf Air, Malaysian, Air Malta, Cyprus Airways, Vueling, Jet Airways, Kingfisher, El Al, Sri Lankan, Air Seychelles...

This has been discussed many times, but the airlines that fly to Heathrow like flying to LHR. The above list has no intention of moving to Gatwick or getting "gatwicked" as many airline were forced to after 1977. Its time for more runways at LHR anything else is Plan B or C.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9638 posts, RR: 52
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 2191 times:

While I promote creative ideas, the suggestions are the opposite of what the trend towards open skies is all about.

First off, LHR is the most convenient airport for central London, so why on earth would priority not be given to airlines focused on O/D from London? It makes no sense at all to have the airport encourage connections. That does not benefit the people of London. Let larger airports like AMS or FRA handle connections.

The notion that LHR will operate at less than 100% capacity also doesn't make sense. The airport authority determines the number of available slots to handle traffic. Most days the flow rate works reasonably well with only marginal flow control delays. When weather is bad airlines are willing to make sacrifices and proactively cancel because the lost revenue of cutting slot numbers outweighs the cost of irregular operations.

Any bias towards airlines in alliances is anti capitalism and would result in lawsuits by airlines not in alliances and other airlines like emirates getting into creative alliance agreements to get around such restrictions.

Restricting aircraft size is also risky. If you force larger airplanes then you force airlines to operate less efficiently and also push away short haul flights to the airport. You also encourage less utilization during slow periods when slots are available. There are unused slots at LHR. These are usually evening operations that don't connect to other flights and are bad departure times for long haul.

Things that do work are slot controls and taxes. High fees push traffic to other airports. Slot controls regulate traffic.

The only other controversial option would be a perimeters. High yield short haul could use LCY. low yield can use LGW. Ireland, and the rest of the UK want LHR service nd we have seen the authority emphasizing having some short haul service. This would push some connecting traffic away from LHR and let's London's people get maximum benefit from the airport.

A market based system with only the minimum neccessary interference results in the best utilization and profit for the airlines. Airlines wanting to start service buy slots on the market. This ensures that slots go to airlines and routes that will fully utilize them. Slots are needed. High fees to push marginal yielding traffic away and to discourage airlines from sitting on slots



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7531 posts, RR: 17
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 10 hours ago) and read 2029 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 23):
There are unused slots at LHR. These are usually evening operations that don't connect to other flights and are bad departure times for long haul.

The only arrival slots not used at LHR last Summer were a total of 16 on a Saturday evening.

If you go to the Airport Coordination Ltd web site here:

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

click on "LHR S12 Start of Season" and go to page 11 of the report you will see that these unallocated arrival slots consisted of:

Six between 1800 and 1900 UCT

Eight between 2000 and 2100 UCT

Two between 2100 and 2130 UCT

With a total of 4,732 weekly arrival slots that means that arrival slot take up is 99.67 per cent.

Unallocated departure slots (shown on the graph and table on the lower half of page 11) were spread between 1800 and 2000 UCT on Saturday evening and 0500 and 0700 UCT on Sunday morning.

Note that the number of slots in each hourly period varies as different sized aircraft require differing separations on approach because of wake turbulence.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 23):
The airport authority determines the number of available slots to handle traffic.

The only determination of slot numbers by any authority are:

The official night-time curfew

The designation of the two runways as the "arrival" and the "departure" runway (that is less slot efficient than multi-mode operation)

The noise arrival /slot restrictions that operate in the very early morning (prior to 06.00 am local time) together with a period between 0600 and 0630 am local time when no arrivals are scheduled so that long haul flights that arrive in the LHR holding pattern early can be landed and not left needlessly in one of the stacks.

Otherwise every possible slot is available for allocation by Airport Coordination Ltd that is owned by the airlines and not by any government or local government authority but operates under the rules laid down by the EC..


25 Post contains images LX138 : Huh? I Didn't say it hadn't. What an earth is wrong with those? But they should. A problem is that people have grown up in a world where it has not b
26 skipness1E : How many LHR-JFK flights would then be dropped? How many fewer pilots? Cabin crew? Baggage loaders? Should be just gift wrap that and send it oversea
27 jumpjets : I know you didn't want to dwell on MA - but MA is Malev which is dead and buried and belonged to Oneworld anyway - but if you are referring to Malays
28 2travel2know2 : A compromise which affected airlines may find acceptable is to be enticed them to move their flights operating LHR as an stop en-route somewhere to LG
29 ytz : Let the free market decide. Oh wait. They are. Slots are being bid on. The only consequence is that passengers are paying more to travel to or thru Lo
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...
Aircraft Grounded Away From Hub posted Sat Apr 17 2010 10:17:49 by louA340
ATA/World/NA Merger--Moving Away From WN? posted Tue Apr 10 2007 01:43:34 by JustPlaneNutz
Terminal 1 At Heathrow To Become Star Alliance Hub posted Wed Nov 3 2004 18:19:30 by Gilesdavies
Is CMH The Most Cities Served From Non-Delta Hub? posted Fri Jul 11 2003 00:47:36 by AirOne
Alliance Hub Question posted Tue Feb 14 2012 14:30:02 by TWA85
UA Takes Economy Plus Away From Premier posted Thu Sep 22 2011 11:38:26 by 764
XA-DUG At Pope JPII's 1st Trip Ever Away From Rome posted Thu Apr 2 2009 15:56:41 by MayaviaERJ190
1st Air France A380 Weeks Away From Flying (PIC) posted Wed Jan 7 2009 13:36:07 by IAD787
New Star Alliance Hub Pics ( CAI Terminal 3 ) posted Sun Aug 3 2008 08:18:06 by MSYYZ
Any Landing You Can Walk Away From... posted Thu May 15 2008 17:20:07 by Mcvideo