This future scenario has been interesting me.

Inevtiably Heathrow will get a third runway, but what kind of a response/ effect will it have on British Airways? As we know British Airways leadership aren’t exactly keen on the idea of adding additional capacity and it would mean knocking down their Waterside HQ. British Airways won’t get all of the additional slots the new runway would create.

Could we see low cost airlines move into Heathrow?
More secondary market flights from BA? China secondary cities on 787s
BA operating smaller aircraft to protect yields?
More domestic/ european flights from BA? HS2 may take away from London to Scotland
Who ever is left standing of the ME3?

Certainly, will resolve the lack of slots problem.
More slots = More routes. We can see routes now only in LGW doing in LHR, replace them or more frequencies in the two airports, by BA
Im talking about these routes, in specific: LHR-ALC/VLC, LHR-FNC, LHR-OPO, LHR-MCO, and others.
They have, saying anna.aero, the most pax routes in london airports in UK that do not have service to LHR.
About LCC, easyjet is planning open an hub in LHR, only the time will say something.

HS2 won't be anywhere near Scotland, at least within the lifetime of most people reading this post.

However a truely economical MoM plane could affect Heathrow (and other hubs) by making more direct routes from "the regions" more viable.

Bogof7478 wrote:

This future scenario has been interesting me.

Inevtiably Heathrow will get a third runway, but what kind of a response/ effect will it have on British Airways? As we know British Airways leadership aren’t exactly keen on the idea of adding additional capacity and it would mean knocking down their Waterside HQ. British Airways won’t get all of the additional slots the new runway would create.

Could we see low cost airlines move into Heathrow?
More secondary market flights from BA? China secondary cities on 787s
BA operating smaller aircraft to protect yields?
More domestic/ european flights from BA? HS2 may take away from London to Scotland
Who ever is left standing of the ME3?

R3 is far from garranteed

To answer your points imho:

1 Easyjet are the only major carrier of any size to express an interest in operating from an expanded Heathrow indeed they would like the opportunity for exclusive use of a remodelled T4 , however if this is simply at the expense of Gatwick I don’t support it
2 Contrary to some anetters belief and that of few right wing UK politicians in particular, China is NOT a goldmine indeed BA have already taken chill on regional Chinese operations and so have a few other western airlines. The Chinese carriers are all heavily subsidised and their expansion is driven by Chinese political aims more so than simple profit.
3 imho domestic routes are a smoke screen - they have largely diminished on purely economical grounds ie they make huge losses . BA show little interest in extending their range and the only other candidates are Easyjet perhaps to Scotland and Flybe if they survive for another ten years and then receive a huge dolup of public money in PSO grants.
You might see a few of the weaker Central European carriers return I suppose
4 HS2 phase 1 works have now begun in and around Ruislip through it’s going to be some years before Chinese built copies of the German E320 and classic compatible units probably variations of the IET or pendulino are running to Birmingham and beyond . The classic compatibles are intended to run via the current WCML beyond Crewe and Manchester onto Scotland from about 2030!
5. Emirates and Qatar are arround for many years to come imho
6. Fact is much and most of the expected growth in aviation continues to be short haul leisure based and by definition flexible fares carriers within Europe for the next decade and this can be accommodated elsewhere in the UK airport system for some years to come . Most of the exponential growth in both India and China will also be regional in the main .

Easyjet and Ryanair at Heathrow, let's hope not. They should stay at Gatwick, Luton and Stansted. Anyways the cost of eplanements at LHR is high and would make a large cost on a shorthaul ticket for an LCC airline. Heathrow should remain the business airport, no Air Transat or Virgin "beachfleet" allowed.

BA should just transfer the LGW operation to LHR to hog slots and slowly build LGW back up....
Plus OW partners will want slots as well

I wonder how a 3rd runway at LHR would affect the other London area airports, especially LGW. For example, would CX end LGW? Do they actually see a viable market there or is it just because of the LHR slot issue?

Doesn't BA also indirectly benefit from there being no third runway at LHR? Don't the slot restrictions and resultant high cost of operations limit competition to an extent?

TWA772LR wrote:

I wonder how a 3rd runway at LHR would affect the other London area airports, especially LGW. For example, would CX end LGW? Do they actually see a viable market there or is it just because of the LHR slot issue?

slot issue

CX can easily sustain 8 daily to LHR but it is all constrained

Kashmon wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

I wonder how a 3rd runway at LHR would affect the other London area airports, especially LGW. For example, would CX end LGW? Do they actually see a viable market there or is it just because of the LHR slot issue?

slot issue

CX can easily sustain 8 daily to LHR but it is all constrained

I’ve often thought about this too. Would this be the same as the other legacy carriers at LGW? Would they all move over to LHR if and when they could? EK, TK, BA, VS, TP, FI?

I’m sure many of them have built up their own market since being at LGW but equally I’m sure they’d all prefer to be at LHR. With BA, they could move all ops to LHR and setup a Level/Vueling bass at LGW to cater for the non-premium traveller. Thoughts?

Kashmon wrote:

BA should just transfer the LGW operation to LHR to hog slots and slowly build LGW back up....
Plus OW partners will want slots as well

They have just taken on a massive ammount of slots in Gatwick, that will not happen.

jfk777 wrote:

Easyjet and Ryanair at Heathrow, let's hope not. They should stay at Gatwick, Luton and Stansted. Anyways the cost of eplanements at LHR is high and would make a large cost on a shorthaul ticket for an LCC airline. Heathrow should remain the business airport, no Air Transat or Virgin "beachfleet" allowed.

Is this actually airport snobbery that I'm seeing? Keep the dirty, unwashed masses at the other airports

Bogof7478 wrote:

Inevtiably Heathrow will get a third runway,

People have been saying that for nearly half a century (ironic, seeing as there actually *was* a third runway for most of that time frame, just not a useful one in regard to alleviation)...

...so the question is sadly, but demonstrably, predicated on a fallacy.
There is no guarantee to that outcome.

Kashmon wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

I wonder how a 3rd runway at LHR would affect the other London area airports, especially LGW. For example, would CX end LGW? Do they actually see a viable market there or is it just because of the LHR slot issue?

slot issue

CX can easily sustain 8 daily to LHR but it is all constrained

If there was that much demand I'm sure either CX or their Oneworld partner BA could have upgauged a few flights, no?

BA would probably get bigger with new acquisitions, competition from Easyjet would also drive down fares at LHR. Most importantly, aircraft noise and pollution will actually be lower even with more flights. With a new generation of quieter aircraft, shorter taxi distances and far less holding in long queues on the ground, and especially for arrivals in the air.

What the public and Nimby's don't get, is that there are many benefits to a third runway at LHR. Rather than one constant stream of arrivals landing on a single runway, Heathrow could use all three across the day, particularly in the morning and evening peak. This means the noise is more fairly spread over a much wider area, and the constant din is much less for most, allowing far greater spacing and some respite for those living under the existing two runways.

The current LHR average delay for both arrivals and departures is at least 15 minutes; multiply by 480,000 movements equals 5000 days (per year) with 2 - 4 engines running, with the associated noise and emissions.

It would also result in less of a morning and evening movement spike. Having three runways at Heathrow is far greener than most people think.

mxaxai wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

I wonder how a 3rd runway at LHR would affect the other London area airports, especially LGW. For example, would CX end LGW? Do they actually see a viable market there or is it just because of the LHR slot issue?

slot issue

CX can easily sustain 8 daily to LHR but it is all constrained

If there was that much demand I'm sure either CX or their Oneworld partner BA could have upgauged a few flights, no?

BA won't have the demand
CX will

CX already uses its largest aircraft to LHR ( business class)

Arion640 wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

BA should just transfer the LGW operation to LHR to hog slots and slowly build LGW back up....
Plus OW partners will want slots as well

They have just taken on a massive ammount of slots in Gatwick, that will not happen.

LHR is a way bigger prize than LGW

UTA sorry but the holds are over rather sparcely pupulated areas at above 7000 feet and in reality don’t create much noise nuisance.

R3 is meant to be operated in mixed modes whilst the existing runways continue to run segregated. Further the current 27R and the new 27N may be too close for effective parallel landings and safe airway spacing management.

The noise foot print zones will be much wider this is inevitable whilst respite periods may actually be worse than currently offered with two approach paths continuously in operation.

Stacks won’t disappear either being that they are primarily used to separate differing traffic classes towards base leg and final approach this being absolutely necessary with the mix of wide body heavies and narrow bodies that use LHR, indeed it may well be necessary to introduce additional points further out to separate traffic much earlier.

Current hold periods are rather less than 15 minutes for most of the day, however because of the need to group traffic types and spacings to get best possible flow control on finals, arrivals aren’t on a first come first served basis today.

As to noise generated by aircraft yes it reduced through eighties and early nineties as the VC10, Tridents, BAC1-11, DC8s 707s CV990 and first gen 747s began to disappear however the A320, 737NG, and modern Airbus and Boeings with RR/GE/PW engines are no longer making much progress in further and significant noise reductions from here on in.

Kashmon wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

BA should just transfer the LGW operation to LHR to hog slots and slowly build LGW back up....
Plus OW partners will want slots as well

They have just taken on a massive ammount of slots in Gatwick, that will not happen.

LHR is a way bigger prize than LGW

And let Norwegian run wild and free at LGW if they can't buy them out?

One thing we will likely see is many airlines increasing frequency and operating the smallest possible aircraft to LHR in order to hog slots. Kind of what KLM did in the past.

I imagine a third runway allowing the likes of Easyjet into LHR would be beneficial to VS. They could codeshare and get that Europe feed they've been needing to expand.

Virgin need no feed as such . They simply operate as an adjunct to Delta these days providing a UK brand image into the heavily O&D London market. Deltas’ Euro connection Hub remains Amsterdam period stop.

I live close to Heathrow and haven't flown from there for years because it's always more expensive than Stansted, Luton or Gatwick. Want to fly from Heathrow? Pay an extra £30 at least. I don't see low-cost passengers or low-cost airlines going for that. Plus the long delays will play havoc with their tight schedules, because even with an extra runway it's going to be as tight as a trout's sphincter.

Bogof7478 wrote:

This future scenario has been interesting me.

Inevtiably Heathrow will get a third runway,

I very strongly disagree with that statement.

It is a myth on this forum that the third runway at Heathrow is approved. It is not yet approved. All that has happened is that the Government made a decision to support the building of a third runway. That is a significant step, yes, because it means the Government will allocate funds to it - if not directly for the runway itself, then for infrastructure that supports it.

But the planning approval for it, which is needed before any work can commence, is still a long long way off and may never actually happen, despite Government support for the runway.

Note that I am not against the 3rd runway - extra capacity is clearly desperately needed for London - but we should be clear that approval for a third runway at Heathrow has not yet been given. I do however support the due democratic process that has to happen before approval can be given. The people who live around Heathrow and who would be affected by the expansion of it deserve to be heard. As do also the airlines, the passengers and the businesses that are impacted by the lack of capacity in London.

Kashmon wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

slot issue

CX can easily sustain 8 daily to LHR but it is all constrained

If there was that much demand I'm sure either CX or their Oneworld partner BA could have upgauged a few flights, no?

BA won't have the demand
CX will

CX already uses its largest aircraft to LHR ( business class)

Surely they could've gotten larger aircraft. Especially seeing how CX alone have 2 flights departing within half an hour from LHR, and BA's two flights are nearly simultaneously (all around midnight). Also, BA and CX codeshare and seem like fairly close partners.

mxaxai wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

If there was that much demand I'm sure either CX or their Oneworld partner BA could have upgauged a few flights, no?

BA won't have the demand
CX will

CX already uses its largest aircraft to LHR ( business class)

Surely they could've gotten larger aircraft. Especially seeing how CX alone have 2 flights departing within half an hour from LHR, and BA's two flights are nearly simultaneously (all around midnight). Also, BA and CX codeshare and seem like fairly close partners.

no
CX prefers frequency to all its other LH markets and cargo space.
CX needs slots, not larger aircraft.
they just code share, they are not that close- CX thrashed BA on the route

Arion640 wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

They have just taken on a massive ammount of slots in Gatwick, that will not happen.

LHR is a way bigger prize than LGW

And let Norwegian run wild and free at LGW if they can't buy them out?

Well its either that or BA sign up to take delivery of 100 aircraft that year and have some un realistic expansion
allowing competitors to expand at LHR will thrash BA's yields far more than the loss making Norwegian will do at LGW
plus BA can quickly scale back at LGW any time

if LHR had 4 runways, LGW would be so insignificant. Not a single international airline actually wants to fly there....

I think a third runway at Heathrow would allow BA to operate a greater number of niche destinations with decent O&D/yields on A321s in a mid haul config to destinations in MidEast/Africa. Additional TATL expansion could occur with further growth to mid size American cities.

I believe the LGW operation would still be there, although I could see some routes switching to LHR.

Kashmon wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

BA won't have the demand
CX will

CX already uses its largest aircraft to LHR ( business class)

Surely they could've gotten larger aircraft. Especially seeing how CX alone have 2 flights departing within half an hour from LHR, and BA's two flights are nearly simultaneously (all around midnight). Also, BA and CX codeshare and seem like fairly close partners.

no
CX prefers frequency to all its other LH markets and cargo space.
CX needs slots, not larger aircraft.
they just code share, they are not that close- CX thrashed BA on the route

BA and CX do NOT codeshare or even co ordinate their schedules on the London -Hong Kong market they are in fact very aggressive competitors.
They only have selective codes beyond Heathrow to a limited number of BA domestic and near European destinations with similar arrangement beyond Hong Kong to mainland China, Formosa and the Philippines.

Those two Cathay departures from LHR within minutes of each other consists of one 4 class and one 3 class 77w and additionally supplies extensive cargo uplift that simply wouldn’t be available with an A380 or 748i.

However this has little directly to do with this debate.

As @vhtje says.. the third runway at LHR is a long way off..
The Goverment accepted the recommendations of the Airports Commission for the third runway at LHR, but seems to be proceeding at a snails pace..
The Airports Commission report was a major exercise in gathering information, it took three years and cost an estimated £15 to £20 million to produce... but seems to be gathering dust..... and is probably outdated by now.
The logistical challenges of plonking a new runway down in a densely populated area cannot be underestimated.. rerouting one if the busiest roads in Europe will be a major exercise alone.. and how the money will be raised is another question..
It could all get kicked into the long grass for another generation..

My guess is that we will muddle through with incremental increases in capacity at the other London airports.. then maybe a new runway at Gatwick and maybe Stansted.. but it is a political hot potato that politicians are avoiding at all costs..

BlueberryWheats wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

Easyjet and Ryanair at Heathrow, let's hope not. They should stay at Gatwick, Luton and Stansted. Anyways the cost of eplanements at LHR is high and would make a large cost on a shorthaul ticket for an LCC airline. Heathrow should remain the business airport, no Air Transat or Virgin "beachfleet" allowed.

Is this actually airport snobbery that I'm seeing? Keep the dirty, unwashed masses at the other airports

Nothing wrong with that at all! Ryanair, Easyjet and their pax can go elsewhere.

flyingphil wrote:

As @vhtje says.. the third runway at LHR is a long way off..
The Goverment accepted the recommendations of the Airports Commission for the third runway at LHR, but seems to be proceeding at a snails pace..
The Airports Commission report was a major exercise in gathering information, it took three years and cost an estimated £15 to £20 million to produce... but seems to be gathering dust..... and is probably outdated by now.

I suspect the government losing its majority may well be a factor in the delay not to mention the big B word around which everything seems to currently revolve.

There won't be a need for a third runway as all the flights will stop apparently.

Well.. the government is saying that Brexit means that it is all the more important that we demonstrate that the UK is open to the world and connectivity will be a key thing.. i.e. more runways..

not that they have actually DONE anything about it. .

BA has not shown any enthusiasm for the third runway so far.. dont blame them as they will probably end up picking up some of the bill and then have easyJet & co trying to move in on their very profitable home turf..

sevenair wrote:

There won't be a need for a third runway as all the flights will stop apparently.

Can you actually explain what your referring to?

In your mind you may know what your talking about but it makes no sense to myself and probably others!

Arion640 wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

BA should just transfer the LGW operation to LHR to hog slots and slowly build LGW back up....
Plus OW partners will want slots as well

They have just taken on a massive ammount of slots in Gatwick, that will not happen.

And those slots could easily be sold if OR when LHR gets a third runway!

It was a good call by IAG when they purchased those former Monarch slots at LGW knowing full well that any expansion of LHR with a third runway was decades away if that.

flyingphil wrote:

As @vhtje says.. the third runway at LHR is a long way off..
The Goverment accepted the recommendations of the Airports Commission for the third runway at LHR, but seems to be proceeding at a snails pace..
The Airports Commission report was a major exercise in gathering information, it took three years and cost an estimated £15 to £20 million to produce... but seems to be gathering dust..... and is probably outdated by now.
The logistical challenges of plonking a new runway down in a densely populated area cannot be underestimated.. rerouting one if the busiest roads in Europe will be a major exercise alone.. and how the money will be raised is another question..
It could all get kicked into the long grass for another generation..

My guess is that we will muddle through with incremental increases in capacity at the other London airports.. then maybe a new runway at Gatwick and maybe Stansted.. but it is a political hot potato that politicians are avoiding at all costs..

Yep and the current gov has a very thin majority with a number of MPs in constituencies under the flightpath who will be against it (Zak Goldsmith being a huge one) and a main opposition that supported the 3rd runway when they were in power and now oppose it.........

Kashmon wrote:

BA should just transfer the LGW operation to LHR to hog slots and slowly build LGW back up....
Plus OW partners will want slots as well

As if additional slots at LHR are going to be handed out free like candy. BA from my general reading doesn't want to pay higher fees to pay for the for the new runway. If they were to relocate their fleet currently at LGW, BA would need additional slots. Furthermore, it's not just the total number of slots that matter but their time that is important. They would have to pay for new slots especially at peak times.

Cunard wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

BA should just transfer the LGW operation to LHR to hog slots and slowly build LGW back up....
Plus OW partners will want slots as well

They have just taken on a massive ammount of slots in Gatwick, that will not happen.

And those slots could easily be sold if OR when LHR gets a third runway!

It was a good call by IAG when they purchased those former Monarch slots at LGW knowing full well that any expansion of LHR with a third runway was decades away if that.

Of course they can. But like I said they aren't going to let Easyjet/Norwegian get a free reign at LGW. If it's not them two airlines by 2020 whatever it's just going to be someone else.

rutankrd wrote:

Bogof7478 wrote:

This future scenario has been interesting me.

Inevtiably Heathrow will get a third runway, but what kind of a response/ effect will it have on British Airways? As we know British Airways leadership aren’t exactly keen on the idea of adding additional capacity and it would mean knocking down their Waterside HQ. British Airways won’t get all of the additional slots the new runway would create.

Could we see low cost airlines move into Heathrow?
More secondary market flights from BA? China secondary cities on 787s
BA operating smaller aircraft to protect yields?
More domestic/ european flights from BA? HS2 may take away from London to Scotland
Who ever is left standing of the ME3?

R3 is far from garranteed

To answer your points imho:

1 Easyjet are the only major carrier of any size to express an interest in operating from an expanded Heathrow indeed they would like the opportunity for exclusive use of a remodelled T4 , however if this is simply at the expense of Gatwick I don’t support it
2 Contrary to some anetters belief and that of few right wing UK politicians in particular, China is NOT a goldmine indeed BA have already taken chill on regional Chinese operations and so have a few other western airlines. The Chinese carriers are all heavily subsidised and their expansion is driven by Chinese political aims more so than simple profit.
3 imho domestic routes are a smoke screen - they have largely diminished on purely economical grounds ie they make huge losses . BA show little interest in extending their range and the only other candidates are Easyjet perhaps to Scotland and Flybe if they survive for another ten years and then receive a huge dolup of public money in PSO grants.
You might see a few of the weaker Central European carriers return I suppose
4 HS2 phase 1 works have now begun in and around Ruislip through it’s going to be some years before Chinese built copies of the German E320 and classic compatible units probably variations of the IET or pendulino are running to Birmingham and beyond . The classic compatibles are intended to run via the current WCML beyond Crewe and Manchester onto Scotland from about 2030!
5. Emirates and Qatar are arround for many years to come imho
6. Fact is much and most of the expected growth in aviation continues to be short haul leisure based and by definition flexible fares carriers within Europe for the next decade and this can be accommodated elsewhere in the UK airport system for some years to come . Most of the exponential growth in both India and China will also be regional in the main .

If you lived near or west of Heathrow and had to drive or rail to LGW, LTN or STN for a low cost flight you would disagree.

Kashmon wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

I wonder how a 3rd runway at LHR would affect the other London area airports, especially LGW. For example, would CX end LGW? Do they actually see a viable market there or is it just because of the LHR slot issue?

slot issue

CX can easily sustain 8 daily to LHR but it is all constrained

So CX could sustain a jump from their 1 daily non-stop A359 (280) seats at gatwick to 8 daily A359 (2240) seats. Do you realize how bad that would kill yields?

rutankrd wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

CX prefers frequency to all its other LH markets and cargo space.
CX needs slots, not larger aircraft.

Those two Cathay departures from LHR within minutes of each other consists of one 4 class and one 3 class 77w and additionally supplies extensive cargo uplift that simply wouldn’t be available with an A380 or 748i.
However this has little directly to do with this debate.

On the contrary. Most airlines flying to LHR today could easily upgauge, either by using aircraft they already have or buying appropiate aircraft. We can say that airlines prefer frequency over capacity all day but if there are no slots left, the airline will have to compromise. And many do. In the case of CX, they do use their largest aircraft, the 77W, instead of the A350 or A330. But other routes, other airlines do not. For example, BA's ratio of A321 to A319 is much smaller than Lufthansa's. An increase in passenger numbers of at least 20%, maybe even 50%, could be achieved by using larger aircraft wherever possible. But apparently, the demand is not there.

So why do people think that LHR, and particularly BA, absolutely needs the 3rd runway? Particularly BA does not, not now. And that is why the runway will not come for several more years.

rbavfan wrote:

rutankrd wrote:

Bogof7478 wrote:

This future scenario has been interesting me.

Inevtiably Heathrow will get a third runway, but what kind of a response/ effect will it have on British Airways? As we know British Airways leadership aren’t exactly keen on the idea of adding additional capacity and it would mean knocking down their Waterside HQ. British Airways won’t get all of the additional slots the new runway would create.

Could we see low cost airlines move into Heathrow?
More secondary market flights from BA? China secondary cities on 787s
BA operating smaller aircraft to protect yields?
More domestic/ european flights from BA? HS2 may take away from London to Scotland
Who ever is left standing of the ME3?

R3 is far from garranteed

To answer your points imho:

1 Easyjet are the only major carrier of any size to express an interest in operating from an expanded Heathrow indeed they would like the opportunity for exclusive use of a remodelled T4 , however if this is simply at the expense of Gatwick I don’t support it
2 Contrary to some anetters belief and that of few right wing UK politicians in particular, China is NOT a goldmine indeed BA have already taken chill on regional Chinese operations and so have a few other western airlines. The Chinese carriers are all heavily subsidised and their expansion is driven by Chinese political aims more so than simple profit.
3 imho domestic routes are a smoke screen - they have largely diminished on purely economical grounds ie they make huge losses . BA show little interest in extending their range and the only other candidates are Easyjet perhaps to Scotland and Flybe if they survive for another ten years and then receive a huge dolup of public money in PSO grants.
You might see a few of the weaker Central European carriers return I suppose
4 HS2 phase 1 works have now begun in and around Ruislip through it’s going to be some years before Chinese built copies of the German E320 and classic compatible units probably variations of the IET or pendulino are running to Birmingham and beyond . The classic compatibles are intended to run via the current WCML beyond Crewe and Manchester onto Scotland from about 2030!
5. Emirates and Qatar are arround for many years to come imho
6. Fact is much and most of the expected growth in aviation continues to be short haul leisure based and by definition flexible fares carriers within Europe for the next decade and this can be accommodated elsewhere in the UK airport system for some years to come . Most of the exponential growth in both India and China will also be regional in the main .

If you lived near or west of Heathrow and had to drive or rail to LGW, LTN or STN for a low cost flight you would disagree.

I live just 8 miles north of Heathrow and yet can be at Stansted, Gatwick or Luton within an hours drive , it sometimes takes 40 minutes to get to Heathrow !
Physical closeness isn’t everything !

mxaxai wrote:

rutankrd wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

CX prefers frequency to all its other LH markets and cargo space.
CX needs slots, not larger aircraft.

Those two Cathay departures from LHR within minutes of each other consists of one 4 class and one 3 class 77w and additionally supplies extensive cargo uplift that simply wouldn’t be available with an A380 or 748i.
However this has little directly to do with this debate.

On the contrary. Most airlines flying to LHR today could easily upgauge, either by using aircraft they already have or buying appropiate aircraft. We can say that airlines prefer frequency over capacity all day but if there are no slots left, the airline will have to compromise. And many do. In the case of CX, they do use their largest aircraft, the 77W, instead of the A350 or A330. But other routes, other airlines do not. For example, BA's ratio of A321 to A319 is much smaller than Lufthansa's. An increase in passenger numbers of at least 20%, maybe even 50%, could be achieved by using larger aircraft wherever possible. But apparently, the demand is not there.

So why do people think that LHR, and particularly BA, absolutely needs the 3rd runway? Particularly BA does not, not now. And that is why the runway will not come for several more years.

BA are densifying their A320 fleet seating right now however remember that all the European carriers rarely fill every seat on every flight out of Heathrow today and largely because all operate that blocked middle seat policy up front !

Again those back to back 77w flights provide far more cargo space and passenger class mix for Cathay than a single Super would .

rutankrd wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

rutankrd wrote:

Those two Cathay departures from LHR within minutes of each other consists of one 4 class and one 3 class 77w and additionally supplies extensive cargo uplift that simply wouldn’t be available with an A380 or 748i.
However this has little directly to do with this debate.

On the contrary. Most airlines flying to LHR today could easily upgauge, either by using aircraft they already have or buying appropiate aircraft. We can say that airlines prefer frequency over capacity all day but if there are no slots left, the airline will have to compromise. And many do. In the case of CX, they do use their largest aircraft, the 77W, instead of the A350 or A330. But other routes, other airlines do not. For example, BA's ratio of A321 to A319 is much smaller than Lufthansa's. An increase in passenger numbers of at least 20%, maybe even 50%, could be achieved by using larger aircraft wherever possible. But apparently, the demand is not there.

So why do people think that LHR, and particularly BA, absolutely needs the 3rd runway? Particularly BA does not, not now. And that is why the runway will not come for several more years.

BA are densifying their A320 fleet seating right now however remember that all the European carriers rarely fill every seat on every flight out of Heathrow today and largely because all operate that blocked middle seat policy up front !

Again those back to back 77w flights provide far more cargo space and passenger class mix for Cathay than a single Super would .

The point that BA operates one of the largest A319 fleets among the european legacies still stands. That doesn't look like an airline desperately needing more capacity.

And the argument re CX had been initially been based on the hypothesis that CX could fill double the capacity they operate right now, or at least double the frequency (4 -> 8). Replacing 4 daily 77W with 4 daily A388, plus perhaps a dedicated freighter for all that cargo, would yield significant capacity increases. Or they could offer more seats to LGW. But they don't. Hence, they don't seem to have a huge interest in a 3rd runway either.