ZKOJH
Topic Author
Posts: 1457
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:51 am

Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:59 am

I picked this one up on sky news; it seems BA can't rule the airport can they, oh wait they do! now they have the BD slots

Chronic congestion at Heathrow Airport is driving international airlines away from the UK, according to a new survey.

More than half of scheduled airlines have plans to base flights in other countries because of the crucial London facility's lack of capacity, the poll showed.

And 86% of airlines said they would put on extra flights if more arrival and landing slots were available at Heathrow, according to the Board of Airline Representatives in the UK (Bar UK) survey.

"The message I hear from airlines is clear: If there's no room at Heathrow then flights will move out of the UK altogether."

http://news.sky.com/home/business/article/16210838
Vietnam time..
 
Thenoflyzone
Posts: 2313
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2001 4:42 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:32 am

Quoting ZKOJH (Thread starter):
"The message I hear from airlines is clear: If there's no room at Heathrow then flights will move out of the UK altogether."

No airline with slots at LHR will abandon them simply because they want more slots. LHR is and will always be a slot restricted and congested airport, even with a third runway.

And yes, airlines wishing for more frequency into London will use Gatwick and Stansted. Look at Air China and Korean Air. Many others will follow in the coming years.

Thenoflyzone

[Edited 2012-04-18 20:36:55]
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
 
stylo777
Posts: 2000
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:24 am

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 1):

LH and TK followed already to LGW
 
Someone83
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:47 pm

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:37 am

Quoting stylo777 (Reply 2):
LH and TK followed already to LGW

Yes, but they didn't cut anything at LHR despite this
 
IndianicWorld
Posts: 2806
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:32 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:53 am

This is all just another ploy to make them take action.

The truth is that there is capacity in London at present, especially as SEN comes online now also to further give some airlines options. Airlines are also starting to use larger aircraft, which is likely what was needed anyway.

LHR will be the prized destination, with LGW 2nd, LCY as a major business option, with the LCC's and a few other players choosing to persue STN, LTN and SEN.

A well rounded offering, which although not perfect, is still a great foundation to work from.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19821
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:57 am

This merely means that LHR is at capacity, nothing more. The government has made it clear that capacity will not be added to LHR. There is room at LGW, STN, and LTN for them.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
richardw
Posts: 3137
Joined: Tue May 08, 2001 3:17 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:53 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5):
This merely means that LHR is at capacity, nothing more.

There's slot sitting going on with small aircraft, so not 'at capacity'.
 
brightcedars
Posts: 751
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:18 pm

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:03 am

What, they will land in France or Ireland and put people on boats to reach the UK? What nonsense!

The weaker airlines will be squeezed to the less premium airports and the average aircraft size will steadily increase to maximize each slot's revenue potential.

There are still carriers offering RJ service to LHR, how about that?
I want the European Union flag on airliners.net!
 
vv701
Posts: 5781
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:20 am

According to the linked article the survey determined that 85 per cent of current operators at LHR "said they would put on extra flights if more arrival and landing slots were available at Heathrow". This finding is in significant conflict with with the opening statement of the article that reads:

"Chronic congestion at Heathrow Airport is driving international airlines away from the UK, according to a new survey."

Now read who released the survey results - no less than BAA CEO Colin Matthews.

Now put his statement within the context of BAA's forced sale of LGW and the announcement of the Competition Appeal Tribunal's judgement of 1 February 2012 that found in favour of the Competition Commission's decision of 19 July last year that required BAA to sell Stansted Airport.

No doubt more than one airline with operations at LHR responded to the survey by saying that they would consider future expansion at an airport outside the UK if they could not expand their LHR operations. Hence the reported statement by Mr Matthews:

"The message I hear from airlines is clear: If there's no room at Heathrow then flights will move out of the UK altogether."

As has already been stated in this thread the chances of any airline of any significance moving their existing services away from LHR let alone entirely from the UK, thus giving BA a free ride, are remote. Indeed this is only likely to happen in a BD-like situation unless the sale of LHR slots and a move most likely to the competitive airports of LGW or STN provides sufficient capital to enable that airline to keep operating.

Having said all of that one can see a non-British airline that is not a oneworld member deciding to route trans-Atlantic traffic not destined for or originating in the UK through a hub in continental Europe by adding new flights that could have operated into LHR if a third runway was built. But aren't Star and Sky Team Airlines doing that already?

Building a third LHR runway? Do you think that possibility could be the reason that it is BAA who are releasing the results of this survey?

Finally here is a link to the Press Releases issued by the Board of Airline Representatives in the UK, the reported sponsors of the survey, so far this year:

http://www.bar-uk.org/press/press_2012.htm

As at the time of posting this reply there is no press release on what is their survey. However since it is likely that all or nearly all airlines operating into LHR would like to see a tyhird runway . . .
 
TeamintheSky
Posts: 290
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:18 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:26 am

Quoting richardw (Reply 6):
There's slot sitting going on with small aircraft, so not 'at capacity'.

Very good point. Didn't KL just release an additional slot to DL so DL could switch its LGW flight to LHR? It seems that there are definitely slot-holders that are not utilizing their slots most efficiently.
Since 2010: DL, KL, AF, WX, IG, FR , FL, U2, AK, BA, OK, UX, VS, VN, K6, AT, US, AY, BE, EI, LG, AZ, 9W, SG, AA, JL, W6
 
vv701
Posts: 5781
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:29 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5):
The government has made it clear that capacity will not be added to LHR.

Correct.

In so far as the government has approved trials for mixed mode operation under specific circumstances:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ode-operations-at-heathrow-359602/

the actual number of movements and passengers handled is likely to increase but with no increase in assigned slots or capacity. This will be because fewer flights will be cancelled following any disruption to normal operations.

The impact of these potential changes should not be underestimated as currently a disruption lasting just a couple of hours at LHR can impact both scheduled arrivals and departures over several days as aircraft end up in the wrong place at the wrong time.
 
EI564
Posts: 193
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 9:05 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:52 am

Quoting TeamInTheSky (Reply 9):
Very good point. Didn't KL just release an additional slot to DL so DL could switch its LGW flight to LHR? It seems that there are definitely slot-holders that are not utilizing their slots most efficiently.

Isn't that just nitpicking? If some airlines are slot holding, that still means that other airlines wouldn't be able to get the slots they want. And they'll have to thus operate elsewhere. They may choose another UK airport but they may also choose another European airport (depending on the market). You can never say they will definitely go to another UK airport.

People can't suggest that Heathrow isn't hugely congested right now because it clearly is.

When the article says "driving international airlines away", it means the lack of capacity at Heathrow is driving airlines to choose elsewhere when they they have to decide where to expand. Not that they are giving up existing slots.
 
jumpjets
Posts: 1122
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:17 pm

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:19 am

Quoting EI564 (Reply 11):
When the article says "driving international airlines away", it means the lack of capacity at Heathrow is driving airlines to choose elsewhere when they they have to decide where to expand. Not that they are giving up existing slots

Well said EI564 I think that neatly sums up the situation - and without any melodramatics!
 
vv701
Posts: 5781
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:42 am

Quoting EI564 (Reply 11):
When the article says "driving international airlines away", it means the lack of capacity at Heathrow is driving airlines to choose elsewhere when they they have to decide where to expand. Not that they are giving up existing slots.

With respect the headline of the article says a lot more than that. It reads "Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'". "Flee" means leave and leave quickly. So the headline is saying that congestion at LHR is making airlines quickly move their flights away from LHR! The article then goes on to suggest that none of this lost business will go to other UK airports be it to other London airports like LGW or STN or, as new O&D flights, to airports like EDI, GLA, MAN or BRS.

Very clearly this is more than a gross exaggeration. In simple terms no airline has or is likely to flee LHR however congested it is or becomes. Nevertheless some airlines MAY have added or MAY add flights to continental European airports that they MAY have operated to LHR if LHR slots had been available. A possible example is 9W that MAY have established its European mini-hub at LHR if the necessary slots had been freely available.

It is clearly a fact that some airlines operating into LHR have added new flights to LGW that they would likely operate from LHR if the slots were available . It is also possible that at least some trans-Atlantic O&D flights to provincial UK airports may not have been introduced if slots at LHR had been freely available. Equally feeder flights from UK provincial airports to AMS, FRA and CDG may not have been so numerous if slots had been available to operate similarly as extensive networks into LHR. But none of this can be described as "making airlines flee" from LHR.

Recognise that the announcement of the survey results was made by the BAA CEO and that BAA have been forced to sell LGW and are being made to sell STN. So they will be left with just LHR in the southeast of England. They cannot expand LHR beyond the current number of scheduled aircraft movements. They cannot expand LHR beyond the passenger handling capacity of their current and planned terminals. So BAA subsidiary, Heathrow Airport Ltd, has no way of expanding its business in the medium to long term without the construction of a third runway except by finding more terminal space to rent out more shops, cafes and restaurants and turn each terminal into an even larger shopping mall.

So, in a nutshell, that's what it is all about. New business that could come to Heathrow if a third runway was built may not go to just LGW or STN. Some could go to continental European airports.
 
mikey72
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:04 pm

I would just go in and flatten whatever needed to be flattened, spend whatever needed to be spent and build TWO more runways and TWO more huge shiny terminal buildings !

Anyone that objects to the development of vital infrastructure be it road, rail or air etc should be first in line for whatever cuts have to be introduced when the economy loses business to others.

End of.
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
YULWinterSkies
Posts: 1266
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:42 pm

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:21 pm

Quoting brightcedars (Reply 7):
There are still carriers offering RJ service to LHR, how about that?

If they are small airlines operating from small home airports at less busy hours, it makes sense.

Quoting ZKOJH (Thread starter):
"The message I hear from airlines is clear: If there's no room at Heathrow then flights will move out of the UK altogether."

There is a word for this: lobbyists.
When I doubt... go running!
 
bjorn14
Posts: 3552
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:11 pm

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:29 pm

I heard that LGW is at or near capacity, is this true? STN is where the real growth can occur in the LON market.
"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:42 pm

Quoting TeamInTheSky (Reply 9):
Quoting richardw (Reply 6):
There's slot sitting going on with small aircraft, so not 'at capacity'.

Very good point. Didn't KL just release an additional slot to DL so DL could switch its LGW flight to LHR? It seems that there are definitely slot-holders that are not utilizing their slots most efficiently.

DING DING DING! We have TWO winners!

How to fix Heathrow

Do not pay a fortune to make Heathrow bigger, when it can first be made so much better


http://www.economist.com/node/10924139
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
richardw
Posts: 3137
Joined: Tue May 08, 2001 3:17 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:46 pm

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 17):
http://www.economist.com/node/10924139

The article in the link is nearly four years old.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:54 pm

Quoting richardw (Reply 18):
The article in the link is nearly four years old.

It's an editorial piece, and LHRs problems of four years ago are still clearly present.

What the article suggests to fix LHR addresses exactly what you said: too many airlines with little incentive to use slots efficiently.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
babybus
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 5:07 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:56 pm

Quoting ZKOJH (Thread starter):
More than half of scheduled airlines have plans to base flights in other countries because of the crucial London facility's lack of capacity, the poll showed.

And 86% of airlines said they would put on extra flights if more arrival and landing slots were available at Heathrow, according to the Board of Airline Representatives in the UK (Bar UK) survey.

This is a contradiction. Either the passengers want to fly specifically to LHR or not. Why would an airline fly them somewhere else? Doesn't make sense.

Quoting richardw (Reply 18):
The article in the link is nearly four years old.

This article is better used as budgie cage liner. Obviously very bad journalism.
and with that..cabin crew, seats for landing please.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:03 pm

Quoting babybus (Reply 20):
This article is better used as budgie cage liner. Obviously very bad journalism.

Care to tell us why you think that?
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11864
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:43 pm

While I'd love to see expansion at LHR, I've given up hope. Soon we'll see a new generation of TATL capable narrowbodies (I expect the A320/A321 NEO by 2020 to have the range.) LHR would be an excellent location to fragment travel further across the Atlantic. But the lack of slots will inhibit that expansion. I guess US air should send a thank you card to the Heathrow NIMBYs.   

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
richardw
Posts: 3137
Joined: Tue May 08, 2001 3:17 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:00 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 22):
Soon we'll see a new generation of TATL capable narrowbodies (I expect the A320/A321 NEO by 2020 to have the range.

Would you expect these to be part of USA based airlines' fleets?
 
User avatar
redzeppelin
Posts: 903
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:30 pm

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:31 pm

Does anybody know the breakdown of O&D vs connecting traffic at LHR?
 
User avatar
gdg9
Posts: 757
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:42 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:02 pm

I personally didn't mind taking the Gatwick Express as compared to the Tube when landing at London. Both were fine and got me into Central London in about the same time.
@dfwtower
 
User avatar
United787
Posts: 2206
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:20 pm

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:17 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 14):
I would just go in and flatten whatever needed to be flattened, spend whatever needed to be spent and build TWO more runways and TWO more huge shiny terminal buildings !

Anyone that objects to the development of vital infrastructure be it road, rail or air etc should be first in line for whatever cuts have to be introduced when the economy loses business to others.

End of.

Here Here. Sounds like you need Richard M. Daley to run for office in London! A-Netters may critizise him for his role in getting rid of CGX, but what he did for MDW and ORD is unmatched in recent time in North America and Europe (aka NIMBYlands)
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6691
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:46 pm

Quoting richardw (Reply 23):
Would you expect these to be part of USA based airlines' fleets?

I would assume so, EU carriers are not using narrow bodies TATL, brings up the whole discussion of why US carriers unlike their EU counterparts cannot fill VLA's.
Additionally, which EU carriers are really looking for the additional range that the A32XX series will gain, they may like the improved efficiency but the additional range does not seem to be a demand from EU carriers.
 
brilondon
Posts: 3018
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:14 am

Quoting gdg9 (Reply 25):

I personally didn't mind taking the Gatwick Express as compared to the Tube when landing at London. Both were fine and got me into Central London in about the same time.

You may want to try the Heathrow Express, you just may find it quicker.

Quoting par13del (Reply 27):
I would assume so, EU carriers are not using narrow bodies TATL, brings up the whole discussion of why US carriers unlike their EU counterparts cannot fill VLA's.
Additionally, which EU carriers are really looking for the additional range that the A32XX series will gain, they may like the improved efficiency but the additional range does not seem to be a demand from EU carriers.

No, American carriers don't need a Jumbo bus because they don't funnel all their passengers through one hub such as LHR, FRA, AMS, and CDG. They also don't offer the frequency that many Americans demand.
Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
 
rogercamel
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:41 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:56 am

Quoting gdg9 (Reply 25):
I personally didn't mind taking the Gatwick Express as compared to the Tube when landing at London. Both were fine and got me into Central London in about the same time.

But only 15% of people arriving at/leaving LHR take the tube - around 10% take LHR express (my figures are a little out of date). LHR is far superior to LGW if you are travelling by car to most of London, and areas north and west of London. My guess is that LGW express is similarly around 10-15% of those going to LGW.

Quoting redzeppelin (Reply 24):
Does anybody know the breakdown of O&D vs connecting traffic at LHR?

I've always wondered this - is there anywhere that BA could create a second hub and funnel their connecting passengers away from LHR which could then increase O&D capacity?
 
vv701
Posts: 5781
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:44 am

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 19):
It's an editorial piece, and LHRs problems of four years ago are still clearly present.

The editorial piece was published on 27 March 2008 to coincide with the implementation of Open Skies between the EU and the USA..

T5 at Heathrow was opened to the public on, yes, 27 March 2008.

So clearly the editorial piece was written before T5 was opened.

Are you really suggesting that the £4.3 billion investment in T5 was totally wasted because "LHR's problems of four years ago are still clearly present"?

Prior to the opening of T5 the terminals in use at LHR were designed to handle a maximumj of 50 million psassengers a year. In the year prior to the opening of T5, 2007, they handled 68,066,028 passengers. This was over 36 per cent above design maximum capacity. This was the root cause of many of the specific problems identified in the article.

The maximum capacity of T5 is 30 million passengers a year. Clearly this increase in passenger capacity introduced since the article was written has had a profound impact. Statistically this is confirmed by many parameters. One of these, referred to in the editorial piece, is the number of bags lost.

The absolute number and proportion of bags lost at LHR has dropped very significantly over the last four years. This is not simply because of the advanced baggage handling system in T5. It is also because, as one example, the older baggage handling system in T4 is no longer totally overloaded. The resulting improved efficiency of the systems in both of these terminals and, indeed, in the other terminals, has also improved all aspects of customer service impacted by baggage handling.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:04 am

Quoting VV701 (Reply 30):
Are you really suggesting that the £4.3 billion investment in T5 was totally wasted because "LHR's problems of four years ago are still clearly present"?

Not sure why you are thinking that. The article doesn't say T5 was a bad idea. What it does do is it correctly predicts that T5 will not solve congestion problems. What the article warns against is spending money on a third runway (or even an all new airport) before other improvements can be made which may render a third runway and another airport (extremely expensive projects) unnecessary.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 30):
Prior to the opening of T5 the terminals in use at LHR were designed to handle a maximumj of 50 million psassengers a year. In the year prior to the opening of T5, 2007, they handled 68,066,028 passengers. This was over 36 per cent above design maximum capacity. This was the root cause of many of the specific problems identified in the article.

The maximum capacity of T5 is 30 million passengers a year. Clearly this increase in passenger capacity introduced since the article was written has had a profound impact. Statistically this is confirmed by many parameters. One of these, referred to in the editorial piece, is the number of bags lost.

The absolute number and proportion of bags lost at LHR has dropped very significantly over the last four years. This is not simply because of the advanced baggage handling system in T5. It is also because, as one example, the older baggage handling system in T4 is no longer totally overloaded. The resulting improved efficiency of the systems in both of these terminals and, indeed, in the other terminals, has also improved all aspects of customer service impacted by baggage handling.

That is merely the author providing some contextual information and is far from the main thrust of the article. The entire argument in this piece is resumed in the following two sentences: "[LHR] is crowded because it is too cheap for airlines to use. . .the price for using Heathrow should reflect the value and scarcity of its capacity"
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
vv701
Posts: 5781
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:06 am

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 31):
Not sure why you are thinking that. The article doesn't say T5 was a bad idea.

The article said:

"the £4.3 billion ($8.5 billion) Terminal 5, which opened this week, will improve Heathrow for the 40% of passengers who fly with BA"

But you said

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 19):
LHRs problems of four years ago are still clearly present.

So the article said things would improve but you say they have not. And the article took no account of the closure of T2 (because it predated that event by almost two years) and did not recognise that the increased overall airport capacity on the opening of T5 would benefit all and not just BA passengers. By saying all the problems still exist you deny the article's forecast improvements and are effectively saying that the expenditure on T5 has done nothing to improve anything.

The article mentioned baggage losses. I have already addressed that issue.

The article mentioned interminable queues. These were an inevitable feature of an airport handling over 36 per cent more passengers than it was designed to handle. They have been reduced by the addition of T5 as well as features such as increased numbers of passengers using on-line check-in and the large number of self-service electronic check-in consoles installed over the last four years.

The article mentioned shoddy facilities. Since it was written the brand new and far from shoddy T5 has opened and 30 months ago the oldest and shoddiest of LHR's terminals, T2, was closed.

As far as the article states that "it suffers the worst flight delays" I would dispute its analysis. I have experienced much worse delays at airports other than at LHR (which is my local airport). However this may be a matter of luck. And it is indisputable that LHR's runways are working to maximum capacity and entering a stack before landing is unfortuneately the norm. Tthis is the one problem that is now just as bad as it was four years ago.

Clearly, however, the opening of T5, the closure of T2, the increased passenger handling capacity and the wider use of electronic technology have all improved the LHR experience over the last four years Much of this improvement is due to the ongoing investment in the airport's infrastructure.
 
mikey72
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:06 am

Quoting United787 (Reply 26):
Quoting mikey72 (Reply 14):I would just go in and flatten whatever needed to be flattened, spend whatever needed to be spent and build TWO more runways and TWO more huge shiny terminal buildings !

Anyone that objects to the development of vital infrastructure be it road, rail or air etc should be first in line for whatever cuts have to be introduced when the economy loses business to others.

End of.
Here Here. Sounds like you need Richard M. Daley to run for office in London! A-Netters may critizise him for his role in getting rid of CGX, but what he did for MDW and ORD is unmatched in recent time in North America and Europe (aka NIMBYlands)

The thing is we all want to save the environment. not suffer from noise pollution, burn as little fossil fuel as possible etc

BUT....

The cold hard truth is that the UK is a small island with a 'massive' population of 70M and counting who all have to be fed, watered and recieve whatever benefits (to comfortably survive) they are entitled to etc

What 'enrages' me is that the types that protest will be the 'first' to complain when the coffers start running dry because our infrastructure won't support an equally expanding economy.

The other little facts are firstly that in most cases now people purchased their homes knowing they were near one of the busiest airports in the world.

Secondly if you don't like noise I suggest you move out of London.

When you consider 'all' of this I have little sympathy or patience for this debate.

We either keep up as a nation and tap growth and business where it is emerging or we slip down the rankings and the quality of life for 'everyone' eventually suffers.

Woe betide anyone that whines to me though if that happens.

(get off my soap box now)
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
rutankrd
Posts: 2613
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 6:08 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:28 am

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 33):
We either keep up as a nation and tap growth and business where it is emerging or we slip down the rankings and the quality of life for 'everyone' eventually suffers.

Nothing really to do with this debate but UK PLC has been in decline for the best part of 60 years now.

Yes we found a niche in Finance that has propelled LONDON as a separate economy however at the same time we have
rudely neglected other areas of the economy including manufacture and funded research (MOST of these activities are NOT in London)

Not long ago UK PLC was the 4 largest single economy now the seventh !
 
rutankrd
Posts: 2613
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 6:08 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:45 am

Oh and that myth that we are a small island

The main island that is England/Wales/Scotland in the 9th Largest island on the planet.

Only Honshu in Japan is comparable size in the developed world.

The remaining large isles are either frozen solid or covered in forests !

Oh and Australia is a continent !
 
mikey72
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:14 am

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 34):

Your comments aren't even worth considering.

Rutankrd - do us all a favour and go and live somewhere else.

Call yourself British ?

Good job we havn't all got your attitude.

Youv'e got a very obvious and apparent chip on your shoulder...........
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
rutankrd
Posts: 2613
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 6:08 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:32 am

No i don't call myself British i don't have that schism of identity i my a proud English Man and European .
I am not racist and i do love the capital well i live and work here and have done for more than ten years.

You know from previous threads i support the third runway (Only if its built 3000mm long in the first place) and have also supported the IAG take over of BMI in the NATIONAL interest of UK PLC.

I don't like Willie Walsh but why should I ?

As to the chip i am a northerner (you probably guessed that anyway) grew up in a sixties and seventies in a time when the region was in desperate decline. I am cynical because although London has seen a magnitude of growth (The Finance sector) this has never filtered out .
That decline remains and if you do visit the regions parts of the North West and North East you will find families without work and in poverty . THEY have been neglected by governments both blue and red for just about ever.
 
mikey72
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:54 am

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 37):
I don't like Willie Walsh but why should I ?

I don't like or dislike him as I have never met him.

Have you ?

I do however like what he has done for BA.

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 37):
As to the chip i am a northerner (you probably guessed that anyway) grew up in a sixties and seventies in a time when the region was in desperate decline. I am cynical because although London has seen a magnitude of growth (The Finance sector) this has never filtered out .

I can understand your grievance to a point but in the most part it makes no sense and I'm struggling to find a word to describe your grievance.

You are battling against the history, geography and make-up of the UK that has made London what it is today.

We should all be damn greatful for the income the city provides (no matter how grotesque its remuneration policies sometimes are.) No more so than now.

New York, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Singapore, Frankfurt etc are no different.

I don't think you need a history lesson on the reasons why the North has struggled (collapse of the coal industry, decline in empire etc) but that doesn't mean it always has to be the case.

It also doesn't mean we cast envious and green eyes over what we 'have' got going for us...i.e the city of London.

Leave that to the French and the Germans.

(Ref your comments about the size of the UK....in relation to the size of the population.....it's 'small' !! )

[Edited 2012-04-20 02:31:37]
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
cloudyapple
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:01 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:37 am

Quoting richardw (Reply 6):
There's slot sitting going on with small aircraft, so not 'at capacity'.

Airlines are more than welcomed to arrive on a saturday evening after 6 and depart before 8 on a sunday morning.

A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
 
maddog888
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 6:24 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:43 am

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 37):
the third runway (Only if its built 3000mm long in the first place)

   Wow, a whole 3000 millimetres long! You know you might be able to get planning permission for that one. I assume you are planning on flying similarly scaled wide-bodies from it.      

   Julian
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:19 pm

Quoting VV701 (Reply 32):
So the article said things would improve but you say they have not.

The subject of this thread, of the article posted by the OP, and including the subject of the article posted by myself, is flight delays. Likewise, my comments do not refer to lost luggage - they refer to delayed flights. And as the evidence clearly suggests, flight delays are still a problem at LHR.

Yes, many other problems have been addressed in the mean time, including airport competition by breaking up BAA. But these haven't solved flight delays and they won't. What is needed to fix flight delays is what the article I posted proposes, which would also fix problems associated with inefficiencies of the slot system - namely, airlines underutilizing their slots with small aircraft.

[Edited 2012-04-20 07:27:29]
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
babybus
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 5:07 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:34 pm

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 41):
flight delays are still a problem at LHR.

I fly in and out of LHR with BA all the time. All those flight delays outbound are included in the timetable times. For arrivals, in my experience, if the aircraft gets to the stack roughly on time we land on time. Enroute delays are a different matter.

As a Londoner I still oppose a third runway or any extension to LHR.

Yes, I'm a heretic.  
and with that..cabin crew, seats for landing please.
 
mikey72
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Fri Apr 20, 2012 5:06 pm

Well we will just have to .....Keep Calm And Carry On........

In light of the fact that my two runways and shiny terminal buildings have got more chance of being built on the moon...

I guess there are worse things that can happy in life than stacking over London for 20 minutes....
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
cloudyapple
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:01 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:59 pm

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 41):
The subject of this thread, of the article posted by the OP, and including the subject of the article posted by myself, is flight delays.

No it is not. It is congestion, which is not the same as delay. Congestion means demand at or exceeding capacity, which may not necessarily lead to delay if managed properly.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 41):
And as the evidence clearly suggests, flight delays are still a problem at LHR.

Can you show us the evidence? The article you posted made a claim but offered no evidence whatsoever.
A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
 
vv701
Posts: 5781
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Sat Apr 21, 2012 1:11 pm

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 41):
The subject of this thread, of the article posted by the OP, and including the subject of the article posted by myself, is flight delays. Likewise, my comments do not refer to lost luggage - they refer to delayed flights. And as the evidence clearly suggests, flight delays are still a problem at LHR.

Incorrect. It was the article posted by yourself and not I that expanded this debate beyond congestion.

In Reply 17 you introduced a four year old, very out-of-date link to an article in the Economist. You introduced the link that described LHR as "the most abhorrent international airport". You introduced the link that talked of LHR being the airport that "loses most bags", has "endless queues" and talks of its "shoddy facilities". And now you critique me for discussing subjects that you raised!

And what did you say when you expanded our debate beyond that of the original link? You said:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 17):
How to fix Heathrow

Do not pay a fortune to make Heathrow bigger, when it can first be made so much better

So what has "better" got to do with the TO's link that was all about making it "bigger".

To me it was more than clear that "better" refers to the criticisms first raised here in the link you provided.

If you really were referring only to congestion at LHR - which it certainly seems to me that you were not - exactly what is your solution as to "how to fix Heathrow" and relieving that congestion without paying "a fortune to to make [it] bigger" which seems to be the only solution envisaged by the operator and most if not all others?
 
Thenoflyzone
Posts: 2313
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2001 4:42 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Sat Apr 21, 2012 1:47 pm

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 40):
Wow, a whole 3000 millimetres long! You know you might be able to get planning permission for that one

Nope, i still think the NIMBY's wont allow it !

Thenoflyzone
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
 
mikey72
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Sat Apr 21, 2012 2:01 pm

I breezed through Terminal 5 the other day, did some shopping in some fantastic shops, had a delicious lunch in an excellent restaurant with spectacular views of aircraft and runways. (not in an airline lounge either)

I don't know about the rest of LHR but Terminal 5 is an absolute joy to use.

Always has been.
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:38 pm

Quoting cloudyapple (Reply 44):
No it is not. It is congestion, which is not the same as delay. Congestion means demand at or exceeding capacity, which may not necessarily lead to delay if managed properly.
Quoting VV701 (Reply 45):
Incorrect. It was the article posted by yourself and not I that expanded this debate beyond congestion.

Obviously you two are incorrect. Let's take a look at the OP article first:

"He is one of the airline and industry chiefs anxious for the Government to reverse its policy and give the go-ahead for expansion at Heathrow.

In the speech at the conference in London, Mr Matthews is expected to say: "These figures show that it is a mistake to believe that flights displaced from Heathrow will automatically fly to Stansted, Gatwick or Birmingham instead."

They are clearly talking about flights and even refer to the third runway, not luggage. They are not talking about long queues, either.

Quoting cloudyapple (Reply 44):
Can you show us the evidence? The article you posted made a claim but offered no evidence whatsoever.

If there is no issue whatsoever, why all the talk about a third runway or even a new airport?

Quoting VV701 (Reply 45):
In Reply 17 you introduced a four year old, very out-of-date link to an article in the Economist.

Given the speeds that government changes policy, the article is hardly "old". And for that matter, it is still very, very relevant.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 45):
You introduced the link that described LHR as "the most abhorrent international airport". You introduced the link that talked of LHR being the airport that "loses most bags", has "endless queues" and talks of its "shoddy facilities". And now you critique me for discussing subjects that you raised!

I did not raise these issues whatsoever. The articles does, but only as a background, it is not even close to being the point of the article.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 45):
So what has "better" got to do with the TO's link that was all about making it "bigger".

Improve pricing policies, and you can get more people through LHR with less congestion without making it "bigger" in terms of infrastructure.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 45):
exactly what is your solution as to "how to fix Heathrow" and relieving that congestion without paying "a fortune to to make [it] bigger" which seems to be the only solution envisaged by the operator and most if not all others?

As already alluded to in this thread and in the article I posted, LHR's slots are not optimally used. The current slot system needs to be scrapped and replaced with one whose landing fees are variable throughout the day to reflect peak hours and off peak traffic hours demand. This doesn't cost money, it makes money, all the while incentivizing carriers to use larger aircraft* while also keeping aircraft occupancy as high as possible.

For this to happen, BAA needs to be able to structure and negotiate the fee structures with the airlines. It needs to be able to set prices in negotiations with airlines. Currently, BAA does not have this freedom.

*and watch BA order more A380s before you can say "WhaleJet". For that matter, the A380 could see a flurry of new orders.

[Edited 2012-04-21 08:55:53]

[Edited 2012-04-21 09:05:48]
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
vv701
Posts: 5781
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: Busy Heathrow Is 'Making Airlines Flee'

Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:09 pm

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 48):
I did not raise these issues whatsoever. The articles does, but only as a background, it is not even close to being the point of the article.

You very clearly raised these issues as the first reference to them in this thread is in Reply 17 that you posted.

And "background"? Here is the relevant extract from YOUR link:

"Yet Heathrow is also the world's most abhorred international airport. It suffers the worst flight delays and loses the most bags. Its endless security queues, rude staff and shoddy facilities plague passengers."

Loosing bags is given equal prominence to flight delays. We could have a semantic argument over endless queues and shoddy facilities. But "only . . . background". Hardly.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 48):
you can get more people through LHR with less congestion without making it "bigger" in terms of infrastructure.

As I have already pointed out LHR handled more than 67 million passengers in 2007 using an infrastructure designed to handle only 50 million passengers. So in that respect they were doing a pretty good job.

Do not provide links in your posts if you do not want others to respond to anything they say.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 48):
As already alluded to in this thread and in the article I posted, LHR's slots are not optimally used.
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 48):
As already alluded to in this thread and in the article I posted, LHR's slots are not optimally used. The current slot system needs to be scrapped and replaced with one whose landing fees are variable throughout the day to reflect peak hours and off peak traffic hours demand. This doesn't cost money, it makes money, all the while incentivizing carriers to use larger aircraft* while also keeping aircraft occupancy as high as possible

This is a very simplistic approach. The slot coordinator at LHR, Airport Coordination Ltd has to look at this issue in a much more practical manner. One problem is that the number of slots at any airport varies with the size of the aircraft.

The slot coordinator has to recognise the spacing between aircraft of varying sizes that changes because of different levels of wake turbulence produced by different sizef aircraft. In very simplistic terms this means that any increase in the size of aircraft using the airport will result in fewer arrival and departure slots being available. To simply set a pricing policy that encouraged the use of larger aircraft could even be counter productive. Here note that in a study I carried out and reported on a-net in May 2008 the average separation when an aircraft landed on 09L following any single aisle (small) aircraft was 75 seconds. The average separation when a single aisle aircraft landed following a twin aisle aircraft wa almost 80 per cent longer at 134 seconds. So, rough order of magnitude, you camn land two smaller aircraft for every larger aircraft.

The slot coordinator has to assign slots on the basis not only of runway but also terminal use. Each terminal has a maximum passenger throughput per hour. Simply increasing the size of aircraft through some price mechanism could result in passengers having to remain seated on arriving aircraft on their stands if the number of arriving passengers exceeded the terminal's ability to handle them. Here the slot coordinator takes into account passenger numbers likely to be arriving on international flights separately from those arriving on domestic flights as the former need to transit immigration control and the latter do not.

The slot coordinator also needs to take into account not only the numbers of aircraft arriving and departing with reference to the number of aircraft stands. Here at LHR the size of the aircraft is important. The slot coordinator categorises each LHR stand into one of seven size categories, namely "Small", "Medium", "Large", "Jumbo", "Jumbo Wide", "Jumbo Stretch" and "Jumbo Extra".

The largest number of available stands at LHR fall into the "Medium" category - see below. Indeed I believe all or certainly the significant majority of stands at T5A are "medium" stands and therefore only handle single-aisle aircraft. To convert them to a larger category would require significant infra-structure investment, cause disruption to operations during the conversions and require a reduction in the number of stands and so a reduction in the number of aircraft T5 could handle (which would hardly help reduce congestion).

All of this can be seen by accessing one of the slot coordinator's biannual reports and studying the detail at:

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

Simply increasing the size of the aircraft - even assuming that passengers would respond to these changes - simply would not work. It could well cause more congestion on the ground. Landing and departures slots are simply not the only constraints at any airport's operations.

Finally it is worth noting that an airport operator needs to provide the infrastructure to handle its customers' aircraft and passengers and charge them fairly for the use of this infrastructure.

BAA makes three charges for each aircraft movement:

1. A rotation charge based on the registered Maximum Take Off Weight of that specific aircraft

2. A Stand parking charge for each 15 minute period or part of a 15 minute period that the stand is occupied with a lower charge for remote stands (as opposed to those with an air bridge)

3. A charge for each arriving and departing passenger

I think that if BAA were to reverse their current policy that results in higher charges for aircraft with a higher MTOW they would be open to legal challenges from their customers particularly as around 170,000 out of 290,000 expected arriving aircraft at LHR during the current season will be in the second smallest (Medium) category - check out Page 4 for Summer 2012 in the above link.