Guest

UK Airports After Heathrow And Gatwick

Sat Jul 28, 2001 7:00 pm

people,

what would happen if Heathrow and Gatwick just got closed down by BAA, would they switch to say, EGVN (Brize Norton AFB- it used to be the largest airport in europe in the 1970s i think) or Manchester or Birmingham??

What do u think would happen??

Thanks,

HL  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
 
gkirk
Posts: 23345
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: UK Airports After Heathrow And Gatwick

Sat Jul 28, 2001 8:39 pm

They would build a massive airport, bigger than ATL or DFW, outside of London. They would use STN , LTN,CAM until this airport was built. Some flights may go to MAN or BHX, but that would be unlikely.
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
 
David_itl
Posts: 5950
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

RE: UK Airports After Heathrow And Gatwick

Sat Jul 28, 2001 8:56 pm

Can you imagine how politically difficult it would be to build a new airport in south east England? It would make much better sense to increase use of the airports away from London.

MAN terminal capacity at present is something like 23 million. Runway capacity at present is 58 movements per hour.

By 2010, I would imagine that T2 and T3 would be expanded to what they were originally planned for. Perhaps T4 may be constructed for low-cost carriers. Runway capacity would be raised to at least 70 movments per hour.

As you will hopefully have seen in http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/525232 there a lot of long-haul destinations that are envisaged for MAN; closure of LHR and/or LGW may well accelerate their plans to serve MAN.

Perhaps other people know what expansion plans are underway at their local airport.

David/MAN: 362 and counting

 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: UK Airports After Heathrow And Gatwick

Sun Jul 29, 2001 1:22 am

Stansted in Essex would bear the brunt since it can be developed and local portests who be kept to a minimuim.
Luton would get a lot of gatwick traffic, as would east midlands and mancester.

i detect another mancester fan thinking their airports the best in the world-why would it be more difficult-"Can you imagine how politically difficult it would be to build a new airport in south east England? "- than having mancester as the main airport?

Why, whats the difference?

the fact remains that london will always have the major traffic because its one of the captials of the world, its a shame some people dont always realise this.

Maplin sands in essex would be the site for the new heathrow, in fact in the 50s it was going to be, along with a marnia and if heathrow ever closed it would be the logical choice.

also the north is to get a new international airport near doncaster to open by 2010.
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
David_itl
Posts: 5950
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

RE: UK Airports After Heathrow And Gatwick

Sun Jul 29, 2001 6:48 am

So it appears we have one person oblivious to the environmental movement. Yes, London is the capital and will attract lots of passengers. However, there is MSE, SOU, BOH as well as CBG, LTN and STN to take up the South East market. But we have the question of the mass transportation of people to LHR and LGW on connecting flights which means that there is the potential throughout the country to ease the burden on LHR and LGW.

I forgot that BHX and EMA don't have links to London; the new long-haul routes from BHX are complementing the MAN services and helping to take passengers away from London.

I don't happen to think we've got the "best in the world". Though the following tell their own story: Consistently in the top 10 IATA world airports, voted the best in 1997. Ranked 5th in the 2001 IATA Global Survey for passenger satisfaction - the highest positioned British airport (with Birmingham also beating LHR!).

All I want is the level playing field where the country as a whole benefits from each local airport being sufficiently developed for the local needs with BHX, MAN and GLA/EDI/PIK for Scotland (any one of which to serve as Scotland's main airport) developing the major air links to the rest of the world.

As for Finningley, does the north of England really need this in addition to MAN, LPL, BLK, NCL, MME, SZD, LBA and HUY? It would only make sense if the small fields also closed - goodbye SZD, LBA, HUY for starters and possibly BLK and MME. Can you envisage the Secretary of State for Transport (the MP for Hull) granting permission for this seeing that this would be the death-knell for the airport which his constituency contains and that would lead to some local political ramifications for him.

If permission for T5 at LHR is given, the regions may as well close their airports as it will lead to more clamouring for rights to get into LHR at the expense of the regions. This terminal is said to be for Britain's benefit - why is it that the rest of the country has to give it's backing for anything London wants when they get absolutely nothing in return? How many people know about the rest of Britain? Last year, we had a student on work placement; she had a friend wanting to visit her from Dusseldorf and asked her what is the best way to get to Manchester from London as there isn't an airport at Manchester. Whose fault is that?

David/MAN: 362 days and counting to Britain's Commonwealth Games and not Manchester's Games
 
flyvs007
Posts: 179
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 5:14 pm

RE: UK Airports After Heathrow And Gatwick

Sun Jul 29, 2001 7:58 am

Firstly, Heathrow and Gatwick aren't about to be shut down any time soon...or in fact any time period. Heathrow WILL get its new terminal and a new runway.

After Heathrow and Gatwick comes London Stansted. Approval is all but granted for an increase in traffic over the next few years. STN is Britain's fastest growing airport and I believe one of the fastest growing airports in Europe.

To Mr Manchester fan: When BA moves its operations out of Speed Bird House up to Manchester, then I'll start to believe that London isn't and shouldn't be the center for international aviation in the UK (and Europe).
When I hear Americans talking about visiting England I've yet to hear them say "yeah we're going to Birmingham" - to foreigners England is London.
 
gatwickgunner
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2001 10:13 am

RE: UK Airports After Heathrow And Gatwick

Sun Jul 29, 2001 8:16 am

when someone wants to come to the uk,on buisnes or pleasure,more often than not they want to go to london,not manchester,birmingham,ect
one thing that puzzles me about manchester airport is why the need for a second runway,gatwick will be able to handle40 million a year on 1 runway,it will be a long time before manchester ever gets to those sought of pax figs a year,the london area needs a new runway to ease congestion,but gatwick cant have another to2018 i think
 
richardw
Posts: 3131
Joined: Tue May 08, 2001 3:17 am

RE: UK Airports After Heathrow And Gatwick

Sun Jul 29, 2001 9:09 am

Americans can go to BHX on AA from ORD, so its not such an unlikely phrase FlyVS007
 
David_itl
Posts: 5950
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

RE: UK Airports After Heathrow And Gatwick

Sun Jul 29, 2001 9:32 pm

flyVS007

After Heathrow and Gatwick comes London Stansted. Approval is all but granted for an increase in traffic over the next few years. STN is Britain's fastest growing airport and I believe one of the fastest growing airports in Europe.

Perhaps you can tell the CAA that Manchester's 18.5 million passengers per year is dwarfed by Stansted's 11.8 million.

Perhaps you should tell Liverpool that's its 52% increase in passengers numbers was dwarfed by Stansted's 26%.

Please try and use facts and not fantasies when using comparative data. Or is it the thought that anything outside London can be successful that you cannot face?

To Mr Manchester fan: When BA moves its operations out of Speed Bird House up to Manchester, then I'll start to believe that London isn't and shouldn't be the center for international aviation in the UK (and Europe)

I'm surprised you didn't include the universe as well as the UK and Europe  Wink/being sarcastic


Perhaps you've not heard of T3 at MAN - the terminal that was specifically built for BA and which was opened in 1998 as T1BA. The literature that accompanied it included references to an increased long-haul presence with the LGW-MAN-ISB service becoming a dedicated MAN-ISB 777 service. I do not see ISB as one of the destinations available from MAN on BA. I do see PIA operating 2 or 3 times per day to Pakistan and New York.

Ironically, you are less likely to see a BA aircraft there than another airlines. I estimate that within 2 years, the only BA aircraft at the terminal will be those servicing London; the JFK route may/may not be with AA by then. All other European routes will be handed over to their franchisees.

All BA is interested in is moving passengers to LHR/LGW. Remember, the add-on fares on the shuttle routes are negligible; tell me how this aids the UK? I have known of travel agents in the Northwest who have advised people travelling to New York on a BA holidayfrom Manchester that "they will, unfortunately, have to take the shuttle flight and fly from LHR as there are no flights to New York from MAN on BA". Thankfully, the prospective traveller is only in the aviation industry and was able to inform the travel agent that there is a daily flight. The travel agent then rang BA to confirm that this was indeed the case. How many people have been brainwashed into believing that the first port of call on long-haul flights is from LHR or LGW?

If you are a British subject, don't you find it extremely embarrassing that the sum of long-haul activity from outside London by British arlines is limited to BA MAN-JFK, VS MAN-MCO (summers only) and the new bmi services to IAD (75% loads reported) and ORD (80% loads reported). How can the non-British airlines make a go of the regions yet the British airlines (with the exception of bmi) cannot? Answers on a postcard to Rod Eddington and Richard Branson please.

I am not decrying the need for London to have airports - I reiterate: I want the rest of the UK's airports to have their share of the cake.

Gatwickgunner

one thing that puzzles me about manchester airport is why the need for a second runway

So, having 45 movements per hour on it's single runway is not enough...obviously MAN should have attempted to get 60 or so movements per hour on one runway and who cares about safety!

I have seen MAN raise it's movement rate in 1987 of 37 movements per hour to 45 last year. The peak period now lasts from 6.30am to 10.30am in the morning and 4.30 pm to 7.30 pm in the afternoon/evening

I have seen the passenger numbers rise from 3.5 million in 1979 to 18.5 million last year. With forecast figures for 40 million passengers by 2015, we would need to accommodate another runway! And remember, we're not in the cosy club of the BAA!

I repeat: how many people know about the rest of Britain? They have been brainwashed into believing that London is Britain (not England). Next year, the world will see what exists outside London and there won't be anything that London can do about it  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

David/MAN: 361 and counting
 
757man
Posts: 355
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:59 am

RE: UK Airports After Heathrow And Gatwick

Mon Jul 30, 2001 12:52 am

Ten years ago, BHX didn't have a single scheduled long haul service offered. Midlanders would always have to fly from the big London airports or MAN to get to somewhere like New York.

Nowadays the BHX story is totally different:

American - BHX-ORD
Canada 3000 - BHX-YYZ
Continental - BHX-EWR
Emirates - BHX-DXB
PIA - BHX-Islamabad-Lahore (YYZ from 2/8/01)
Turkmenistan- BHX-Ashgabad (YYZ/JFK coming soon)
Uzbekistan - BHX-JFK-Tashkent

The rumour mill suggests that Delta will start a daily Atlanta service from 2002.

Mention must be given to the excellent range of European destinations this airport has. BHX is the home base of BA franchise partner Maersk UK and BA itself has a fleet of A319's based, all flying from the heavily business traveller orientated Eurohub terminal. BHX is struggling to cope with the amount of passengers using the two terminal at peak times, so a new satellite pier is due to be constructed in early 2002. Current annual passenger figures stand at 8.5 million. Throughput was around the 3 million mark in 1991. BHX is also ranked as the best business airport in the UK according to an industry publication. BHX is set to handle around 11 million PAX by 2005. For all you STN worshipers out there, the success of the Essex airport is for a large part due to all those dreadful low cost carriers who are based there. BHX doesn't have a single low cost carrier based there, and yet passenger figures continue to climb quicker than an empty 757 on take off. Plus, why the hell is STN classed as a London airport??? It's in Essex for Lord's sake!

BHX is one of the easiest airports in the UK to get to, with the M6, M42 and M54 all close by. The M42 is less than two miles from the airport. The mainline Birmingham International railway station is next door to the Main terminal building, and this provides a major link to London Euston, as well as the North. BHX is also the 3rd busiest airport in the UK (after LGW and MAN) for charter flights.

BHX has become the Midlands gateway airport and helps complement MAN a great deal. Both BHX and MAN offer a good range of long haul services and one of those reasons why is because people are sick and tired of using overcrowded hell holes such as LHR. The latter is overcrowded and is a pain in the backside to get to if you live north of the Watford Gap.

The regional airports will continue to expand rapidly, and nothing is going to stop them.






 
gatwickgunner
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2001 10:13 am

RE: UK Airports After Heathrow And Gatwick

Mon Jul 30, 2001 4:07 am

david,
sorry mate did not relise you felt so strongly about man,i suppose im just annoyed that man got another runway and lgw wont,well not yet anyway!!!!! its only natural that we defend out local airports. one thing that did suprise me is i thought the new runway would be a tad longer than it is,oh well atleast you got one lol
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: UK Airports After Heathrow And Gatwick

Mon Jul 30, 2001 5:44 am

Well what do you expect of a mancester fan-no doubt he thinks the national staduim should be up their as well.

forgein businessmen and tourists would rather visit london, its the financial capital of the world, home of currency exchanges and one of the largest stock markets in the world, centre of government.

mancester isnt.

By the way you ay like to note that bA is actually DECREASING gatwick operations becuase it wants to concertrate on heathrow.

Rod Edd has said that BA will have a single hub and that spliting operations, as mr mancester suggests BA does, has a bad effect on BA business.

Mr Ed has suggest the best thing for aviation is a tern 5 and a new heathrow runway.

im more inclined to believe the chief exc of BA rather than a hyped up mancester fan.

the north of england as a built up area, just like the south of england.

Liverpool, leeds, mancester, newcastle, bradford to name but a few.

they are quite large cities with large populations-whats the difference between the 300 000 estimated resident suffering noise from heathrow(according to BA and the CAA) and the population of the city of mancester and its suburbs including bolton and salford?

You mentioned the transport minister-local government doesnt come into it.

Besides mr doffus, the transport minister is steven byers NOT john prescott(mp for hull) who was demoated-shows how much tony blair thinks of hull.

The political ramifactions of having BA going down the pan and of having tourism further effected by a over-crowed heathrow is worse than the residents of hull who will always vote labour no matter what.

Heathrow is all that matters-it must be extended, otherwise BA will lose out and so will britain.

Mancester does not have an unlimited capacity-what happens if mancester became as big as heathrow(as if)-but say it did-are you saying the residents of mancester would like an airport even bigger than heathrow-what about 'the environmental implications'.

if mancester was the size of heathrow right now and it was mancester wanting to extend, do you really see it not falling into the same problems as heathrow?-of course not.

Mr david has his head in the clouds....

Its not votes in hull that matter to labour-its the votes of middle britain and of business leaders-if they have an aiport not big enought to support the captial then london and the UK will lose business to other contries and CDG and frankfurt will get even bigger.

heathrow must be extended otherwise the economy will suffer a lot more and if we have a bigger downturn due to companies pulling out then were will the residents of hull be that mr david cares so much about.

big business matter to labour-not the residents of hull who will always vote labour.

as for the games in mancester-you might like to have noted the bbc news reports-you must have seen them since you love mancester so much.

they state that outside the city nobody knows about the games and that the council and the organisations havent doen enough advertising.

so enjoy your second rate games(didnt see mancester get the olympics it bidded for, twice) because no-one else will be watching in the world because nobody knows anything about it, including tv companies.

a half empty staduim for a city trying to be cosmopolitian with an airport that thinks it a major global hub-says it all really.

It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
David_itl
Posts: 5950
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

RE: UK Airports After Heathrow And Gatwick

Mon Jul 30, 2001 7:04 am

Mancester does not have an unlimited capacity-what happens if mancester became as big as heathrow(as if)-but say it did-are you saying the residents of mancester would like an airport even bigger than heathrow-what about 'the environmental implications'.
if mancester was the size of heathrow right now and it was mancester wanting to extend, do you really see it not falling into the same problems as heathrow?-of course not.


Well, perhaps we didn't go through a long planning enquiry for the 2nd runway that spent a lot of time examining the environmental mitigation that MAN said would take place.

What we should have done, obviously, is gone for true parallel runways meeting the ICAO regulations and taken up a lot more greenbelt land; this would have meant that we would not have backtracking on the 2nd runway and would probably have eased the burden on ATC trying to get up to 5 aircraft crossing the active at the same time.

Perhaps you can inform us of what the limitations on capacity at MAN is? It appears that you cannot understand that current runway capacity is 58 movements per hour with the aim in the medium to long term of raising it to 72 movements an hour. Current terminal capacity in 23.5 million with T2 and T3 only built to half the expected capacity. So it appears that we have ample opportunity to get to the forecast figures.

Where did you get the notion that I want or expect MAN to be bigger then LHR? Better still, please inform us of why you are making this fanciful comparison. I have been consistent in stating that it is LGW we will be ahead of.

as for the games in mancester-you might like to have noted the bbc news reports-you must have seen them since you love mancester so much.
they state that outside the city nobody knows about the games and that the council and the organisations havent doen enough advertising.
so enjoy your second rate games(didnt see mancester get the olympics it bidded for, twice) because no-one else will be watching in the world because nobody knows anything about it, including tv companies.
a half empty staduim for a city trying to be cosmopolitian with an airport that thinks it a major global hub-says it all really.


These second rate games encompass some 72 countries. I'm sorry India, Pakistan, Australia, South Africa, Canada, etc. that someone has taken delight in placing you as 2nd class citizens. That is the implication of your statement.

So no TV companies know about it? Well don't bother looking at the BBC next year between July 25 and August 4 as there will be blank screens. If I were you, I would try to get a refund of the TV licence fee  Wink/being sarcastic

The big launch for the Games was always scheduled to be from 1 year away; yes there have been problems along the way, not the least of which is the strange accounting procedures that appear to have taken place! However, perhaps we can now concentrate the media on actually not continually putting Manchester and the Games in particular, down. Remember how everyone wrote off Sydney one year before the Olympics

There will be no "half empty stadium". It will be full. In fact, thanks to the Wembley fiasco it's only half the size it should have been. But that's London for you - put in a pipedream bid for the national stadium, play on "the venue of legends" and proclaim people like their day out in London for the big sporting occasions. Let's ignore the convenience for the country of Birmingham (or Manchester). We should all choke up the motorways to get to London instead. Very environmentally friendly  Wink/being sarcastic

All our stadia will be used afterwards....can we say the same for any stadia built for London?

As for the Olympic bids, what did we get out of it? A raised profile and several new venues. Yes, a complete and utter waste of time  Wink/being sarcastic The biggest handicap was the total lack of support from London. It has been, and always will be, the case that London thinks it knows best for Britain. I'm sorry - we're now in the 21st Century and fiefdom has long since disappeared.

My biggest word of warning is that if London wants to have the Olympics then our Games will have to be successful. I don't know whether I want our Games to be a success...

Lastly, take a look at the following and tell me that all this lot counts for nothing as we should all have to traipse to LHR or LGW to start our business trip or vacation:

As well as having a population of over 400,000, 60 per cent of the population of Britain, more than 33 million people, live within a two hour drive of Manchester. The wider area of Greater Manchester has a population of 2.5 million and comprises the cities of Manchester and Salford and the Metropolitan Boroughs of Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford and Wigan.

Manchester is a focus for businesses which serve local, regional and international markets. Twenty-seven countries have consular or trade offices in the City.

The City is a major manufacturing base which employs nearly 300,000 people in the Manchester area and almost 700,000 people in the wider region. Some £14 billion annually is invested in plant, machinery and buildings.

Manchester is one of the largest financial centres in Europe with more than 15,000 people employed in banking and finance and more than 60 banking institutions.

Manchester is a major business services centre. More than 45,000 people are employed in legal, accounting, management consultancy and other professional and technical services. Manchester has the largest UK office market outside London and the region has the highest number of publicly listed companies outside London.

Manchester is an international destination for conferences and exhibitions with more than 200,000 bed spaces within one hour's drive of the city centre.

Manchester lies within a region surrounded by areas of national beauty including the Lake District, the Peak District and the Cheshire Plains. Tourism is a major economic sector with 3.59 million visitors spending a total of £463 million during 1997.

It is a major centre for broadcasting, home to BBC North West and Granada Television as well as five radio stations. Eight national daily and five national Sunday newspapers have their offices in Manchester.

David/MAN
 
David_itl
Posts: 5950
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

RE: UK Airports After Heathrow And Gatwick

Mon Jul 30, 2001 7:20 am

Gatwickgunner

I didn't mean to write in such a harsh manner...it wasn't really directed at you but at someone else (guess  Wink/being sarcastic )

FYI, both runways are the same length - 10,000 feet. I also did a quick run through from the MAN timetable of the period 06.30 to 10.30 just out of curiosity. The results were:

189 movements in the 4 hours, of which:
61 were for aircraft with fewer than 71 seats
34 for aircraft with between 70 and 120 seats
94 for aircraft bigger than 120 seats

Where would they place a 2nd LGW runway?

David/MAN
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: UK Airports After Heathrow And Gatwick

Mon Jul 30, 2001 11:28 pm

I dont care what mancester has got it still isnt as imprtant as london and will never ever be.

you mention wetland birds-well if you dream seems to be lth and lgw closing and mancester becoming britians largest airport.

You said the south of england cant have an aiport-yet you have wetland birds and 33 million people living so near by(never mind the fact london on its own has a population of approx 13 million, hey the mancester region is bigger) yet you say your airport can expand but heathrow cant because of politics and the environment, get real.

You said doncaster cant have an airport because of local politics invloving john prescott yet john prescott isnt even the transport minister-just a paper pusher in the cabiet office.

you mentioned newspapers-were are the newspapers based?

in london

you mentioned financial services...

wheres the largest home except ny for financial companies

in london

wheres the stock market?
in london

wheres the BBC?
in london?

where is the home of football?
in london

which british city has the better chance of the olympics?
london

which british city is to have 3 very large staduims built?
in london
(stratford, pickets lock and wembley)

wheres the world athlectics championship?
in london

where was euro 96?
in london

wheres the centre for international forgein exchanges?
in london

where is the only airport in the world to be a joint oneworld and star alliance hub?
in london

nobody rejected sydney or wrote it off beforehand because sydney knew what it was doing-thats why it beat mancester to the games.
oh yes your staduim to be used by man city-except they dotn have the funds because they are in the 1st divson and are a yo-yo club.

where the largest population in people in the UK?
you said it yourself the south east, but know it cant be mancester has got 33 million in its area of 2 hours, my goodness what an international city it is!
all 300 000!

wheres the base of history in the UK?
london

which city is the cultrual capital of Britian
london, or for a month edinburgh.

mancester is nothing more than an industrial city trying to better itself without going about it in the right way.if it was humble enough to realise it shouldnt try and become the second captial of britain then it would be more respected.

but it doesnt.

oh and by the way heres your prove on thinking that mancester can be the biggest airport in the UK...

"As you will hopefully have seen in http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/525232 there a lot of long-haul destinations that are envisaged for MAN; closure of LHR and/or LGW may well accelerate their plans to serve MAN. "

in heathrow and gatwick closed Stansted would be the natural choice for the largest airport along witha new airport at maplin sands-this is because whilst mancester may have more capacity at the moment it will go the same way as heathrow-4 terminals and local residents(since there is 33 million living with 2 hours) and environmettnal concerns(well wet brids are far more important)with people from other parts of the country piping up saying its not fair they want the largest airport.

stansted is nearer to london than mancester and since london is one of the captials of the world then it will be the biggest if heathrow and gatwick shut.

cant see that happening-just heathrow getting more investment from the star alliance with tern 5(6 and 7 already planned) and a new runway plus a new runway at gatwick with another terminal and standsted having a new terminal.

gatwick has alreayd submitted plans for a new runway which were accept by the transport minister-its been in the press and since you live in the media centre of britain you should know this and was debated on previous airline threads(future of heathrow i think)

the future of british aviation rests on heathrow-this will always be the case.

heathrow and gatwick are the be all and end all.heathrow especially.

mancester may be a regional centre but thats all it is.
Birmingham is bigger and is the real captial of central england.

13 million against 300 000 whats more improtant mancester or london?
i rest my case
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
Guest

RE: UK Airports After Heathrow And Gatwick

Tue Jul 31, 2001 4:05 am

So,

what would happen if BAA decided that they needed to use an airport that has runways as long as Heathrow??

in my opinion, i would use EGVN, it has a good history and in the 1970s it was one of the largest aairports in Europe and it's virtually on my doorstep  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

So, what would the advantages and disadvantages of using Brize Norton as a major International airport be??

Thanks,

HL  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
 
David_itl
Posts: 5950
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

RE: UK Airports After Heathrow And Gatwick

Tue Jul 31, 2001 4:27 am

Sorry folks, this post is off topic. On-topic to follow shortly  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

nobody rejected sydney or wrote it off beforehand because sydney knew what it was doing-thats why it beat mancester to the games.

From the BBC website (the one that is in London apparently  Wink/being sarcastic) http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sport/newsid%5F588000/588289.stm

Note - non-pertinent parts taken out:

Monday, 3 January, 2000, 14:08 GMT
Sydney seeks fantastic year

With Olympic year now upon us, the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (SOCOG) will be praying that the problems of 1999 will be replaced by a triumphant festival of sport in 2000.
SOCOG has undergone a barrage of negative publicity in Australia and the committee will be hoping that the antipathy towards it will not detract from events in September.
The start of last year saw SOCOG embroiled in the IOC's corruption investigations, which found Sydney guilty of limited breaches.
Then the issue of marching bands for the opening ceremony hit the headlines.
SOCOG president Michael Knight cancelled a contract for a band made up largely of Americans and Japanese in favour of Australians, and was then taken to court over his decision.
Worse still, as far as the Australian public was concerned, was the ticketing fiasco.
Not only were less on sale than had been advertised but the best had been siphoned off for those prepared to pay premium prices.
Considering that its popularity has rarely been lower, SOCOG was bullish when media manager Milton Cockburn spoke to BBC News Online.
Only an hour earlier the organisation had written off A$100m (£40m) in sponsorship money and announced that it would have to start Olympic year slashing $50m (£20m) from its outgoings.
But Cockburn was keen to put events into perspective.
"People forget that in September we were travelling pretty well," he said.
"We had eleven test events in September alone, six over one weekend. It may have been a case of pride coming before a fall.
"We knew that ticket orders were more than expected. It's been a big issue domestically but it has hardly registered overseas.
"It's really only been a bad last quarter of the year, it's important to put it in perspective.
"Organisationally we have moved ahead, we are in pretty good shape. It hasn't been a bad year."
Cockburn the Olympics were still likely to be a success, despite the public's attitude towards SOCOG.
"Support for SOCOG until this year has been very high, but support for the games is still very high.
"Sydney people are very excited and will get even more excited closer to the games. It's a sports-mad country and a sports-mad city and it will take off."
Sydney is beginning to deck itself out as an Olympic city, with branding appearing on a variety of merchandise and the official shop in the city centre doing brisk trade.
However, regardless of the games' success, Australians may not be quite so quick to forget the problems of 1999.
 
fax
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 7:55 pm

RE: UK Airports After Heathrow And Gatwick

Tue Jul 31, 2001 4:37 am

Some people enjoy sticking their heads in the sand and talking nonsense. Unfortunately for those that choose to ignore it, there is life up north and it is cosmopolitain and vibrant.

Manchester, has adapted and become a tourist mecca; granted to a lesser extent to London- lets not forget that London is our capital afterall.

Nevertheless, Manchester is a lively and interesting destination. The airport is an extension of this, and if it was not for the constraints of central government and their bilateral agreements; Manchester would be even more successful. Hinderences asside, Manchester has a good network of destinations and a loyal and wide customer base.

As a northerner I would always elect to fly from my local airports, when thinking long/medium haul it is always Manchester, even if it means paying more. Why fly down on a shuttle to go through overcrowded, outdated terminals when you have excellent facilities here in Manchester.

Finally, I would say that the preconceived ideas of Manchester are not true. It doesn't always rain, it isn't grim, we don't all wear flat caps and have whippets and the airport is most definetely not second rate.

For those of you down south suffering LHR, I pity you. I have in the past used your delapidated facility and choose not to again! For those people wishing to visit the United Kingdom, Manchester should be your first choice, it IS an international airport and has facilities that other airports would be proud of!
 
Give it a GO
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2001 10:00 pm

RE: UK Airports After Heathrow And Gatwick

Tue Jul 31, 2001 6:56 am

757 Man - What a stupid thing to say! In that case then why is LGW classed as a London airport? It's in Sussex! And why Luton, after all, it's in Bedfordshire! With the STN express it's a whole lot easier and quicker to get into London than the pittiful LGW express.

David_itl,

Stansted IS the fastest growing airport! OUT OF THE TOP 100 WORLD AIRPORTS!

FlyVS007,

Aproval HAS been granted for the PAX increase.
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: UK Airports After Heathrow And Gatwick

Tue Jul 31, 2001 8:48 pm

Im not saying that mancester is a grim seedy hole, im saying that it cant beat london, thats what mr mancester is inferring with his rambling that mancester and its aiport can grow and grow and that mancester would be the natural replacement for heathrow!
Ive said its an industrial city, trying to improve, without goign about it in the right way.it shouldnt try and compete with london, it should be itself, after all most mancs are friendler than londoners.

insteading of trying to out do the south, dont both, stick to whatyou how to do best, being a friendly city.
i like mancester, i think it does have charm, its just that its trying to be london but it doesnt seem to understand that there is only one london.

mancester should carve out its own indentity instead of trying to beat london and should stop dreaming about haveing the largest airport in britain.

i notice mr mancester hasnt responded yet.The bbc article doesnt say it will fail, it says its had problem with regards to alleged bribes and has had nevagtive publicity-at elast its had some publicity-mancester doesnt get any.

instead of trying to outdo heathrow and gatwick prehaps more time can be given to promoting the games that no-one in the UK seems to have a clue about.

at least the world knew about syndey.

back to reality rather than dreams...

Brize norton could be adapted to be a civil airport-the major problem is that I think its still used by the RAF and they would have to find a new base.

RAF new bases are more politically difficult to build than extending an airport!

Stansted is the fastest growing airport in the world and has approval to grow.It also the nearest to london.

that makes it automatic choice is heathrow or gatwick shut, not mancester.
mancester will also get overtaken by the new airport near doncaster which will be the real international airport of the north.

". The airport is an extension of this, and if it was not for the constraints of central government and their bilateral agreements; Manchester would be even more successful. "

what agreement are you talking about?

mancester has routes to the USA and other major destinations, im a little confused.

It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
David_itl
Posts: 5950
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

RE: UK Airports After Heathrow And Gatwick

Tue Jul 31, 2001 9:04 pm

"Stansted is the fastest growing airport in the world and has approval to grow.It also the nearest to london. "

How many more times do you need to be told? LPL grew by 52% last year. I repeat 52% last year. Stansted grew by 26%. I repeat 26% last year. Question to the person with no comprehension: is 52% bigger than, equal to or less than 26%?

If you were to qualify your statement with "OUT OF THE TOP 100 WORLD AIRPORTS!" then it would be true! BTW, I did know about that statement.

Tell me where I'm saying that MAN is going to be bigger than LHR? Is it because there a list of long-haul destinations that MAN is seeking? I'm not saying that we'll have 8 services per day to Tokyo as LHR has. I'm not saying we'll have 8 services per week either. I'll be happy for MAN to get a 3 or 4 weekly service.

In fact, the majority of the "wish-list" services will only operate 2, 3 or 4 weekly; the transatantic destination will tend to be the daily ones.

More to follow later today....

David/MAN: 359 and counting
 
Catflap
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 1:55 am

RE: UK Airports After Heathrow And Gatwick

Wed Aug 01, 2001 12:02 am

The planning of the UK's airports has been in a mess for some time and the situation has deteriorated badly under the current government. The seeming inability to make controversial but neccessary decisions is paralysing the country and nowhere is this more evident than in airport planning. Projections produced by the government in conjunction with the airline industry have indicated that up to 6 new runways will be required to meet demand in the South East, in the next 15 years !!

Of course, the South East won't get six new runways. However, the government is due to publish a report called South East Regional Airports Strategy, later this year. This will lay out the basis for what they do intend to do. The smart money is on a new runway at Stansted. However, they won't give the go-ahead for T5 at Heathrow if they aren't also prepared to give permission for another runway (albeit a shorter one for connecting flights)

I think the government will also back EU initiatives to impose tax on aviation fuel in a bid to curb excess demand. This is likely to be popular with British motorists who are understandably annoyed when they discover just how much they pay in tax (supposedly to protect the environment) and how much aviaton fuel costs. I know of people who are converting their cars to run on aviation fuel.

An earlier poster questioned how a new runway at Gatwick would be accomodated. There are plans for additional runways at Gatwick, Heathrow, Stansted and Luton. They are all contained in a government document entitled the RUCATSE (Runway Capacity in the South East) report which was published in 1993. The best option contained in the document is a floating airport in the Thames estuary (but not at Maplin Sands as an earlier poster suggested). However, there isn't a cat-in-hell's chance of Blair's government backing a risky but visionary scheme of this sort.

I live near Manston in East Kent. The developers are calling it London Manston and predicting it will handle 10million pax/year in 10 years. Personally I don't think they have a cat-in-hell's chance. I think people want to fly to London and they are just calling it London Manston to fool foreigners. Fortunately your average foreigner isn't falling for it and they have had little success attracting passenger business, other than a handful of American passengers landing there to board cruise ships at Dover.

I agree with an earlier poster. The main London airports have to be expanded to meet capacity. I can't see Brize Norton being used. The RAF have been closing airfields for the last few years like they are going out of fashion (which they seem to be) They have centralised and consolidated around Brize Norton. It's difficult to see where else they would go. After all, the top-brass have to be somewhere near London.
 
757man
Posts: 355
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:59 am

RE: UK Airports After Heathrow And Gatwick

Wed Aug 01, 2001 7:48 am

Dear 'Give it a Go',

You obviously are quite a narrow minded individual who has obviously missed the point of what I was saying about STN. I could have quite easily brought the fact that LGW is in Sussex into the conversation, but I highlighted STN because it is perhaps one of the latest casualties to fall into the "lets call ourselves a London airport because it sounds good" category.

This 'fad' is getting on my nerves more and more. I don't really care if STN is one of the fastest growing airports in the UK. It may be good for Euro destinations, but Stansted certainly can't hold down a long haul route for long. Whatever happened to AA? I doubt if the current CO Newark service will last either. Also, I repeat what I said earlier, STN has a lot to thank those hateful low cost carriers for. If it wasn't for the likes of Ryanair, STN would be still way down in the UK airport league listings.

BHX is the true fastest growing regional airport. 7 million people live within an hours drive and the rail and road connections are excellent. The central location makes it easy for Welsh residents to use as well. Unlike STN, BHX can hold down a long haul schedule for longer than two years too. Passenger figures to the Asian destinations from BHX have soared over 200% more than in 2000. There is on average a 30% increase in loads on the majority of scheduled routes as each year goes by.

I also disagree with the anti MAN comments posted here. MAN is THE airport for the North of England. It serves a catchment area with millions of people residing in, and the airport management are obviously 'future minded' for building a second runway. Credit where credit is due.

 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: UK Airports After Heathrow And Gatwick

Wed Aug 01, 2001 11:58 pm

Man will get over taken by the new international airport near doncaster.

id like to support catflap in his comments, he has summed it up well.

UK airport planning and development is in a state.

heathrow will get an extar runway in the next 18 months i think, it does have a second smaller one, but it isnt currently used.

when you think that other major major airports have more than 2 runways it becomes essentialto british business that heathrow expands.

with regards to gatwick-AA didnt promote the service enough,CO are.

Stansted is a lot nearer than london and the airport that rally took the buiscuitwas london luton but since other countries can do it , why cant britian, especially since stansted is better designed than mancester.

the fads going to run out with mancester and its rich for mancester supporters to attack standsted for being linked with london when some of them would have it that their airport could replace heathrow!
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
David_itl
Posts: 5950
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

RE: UK Airports After Heathrow And Gatwick

Thu Aug 02, 2001 3:19 am

As far as I'm aware Doncaster (passenger numbers in 2000: 0) is aiming for 40 million passengers per year. Which is what MAN (passenger numbers in 2000: 18.5 million) is aiming for.

Tell me, does the North of England need to have another airport of this size? Perhaps you can detail the services that Doncaster is going to offer?

I repeat, show me the text where I, or anyone else, has said that MAN is going to replace LHR? All I am saying that there are long-haul destinations that could and should be available from other British airports in addition to LHR.

As for airport design, we'll have to make do with three terminals - one for oneworld, one for the Star Alliance and one for the others. And perhaps plan for a 4th for the low-cost carriers (in which we are similar to BHX i.e we have none)

David/MAN
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: UK Airports After Heathrow And Gatwick

Thu Aug 02, 2001 4:58 am

I think this shows your grand designs
"Can you imagine how politically difficult it would be to build a new airport in south east England? It would make much better sense to increase use of the airports away from London.

MAN terminal capacity at present is something like 23 million. Runway capacity at present is 58 movements per hour.

By 2010, I would imagine that T2 and T3 would be expanded to what they were originally planned for. Perhaps T4 may be constructed for low-cost carriers. Runway capacity would be raised to at least 70 movments per hour.

As you will hopefully have seen in http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/525232 there a lot of long-haul destinations that are envisaged for MAN; closure of LHR and/or LGW may well accelerate their plans to serve MAN.

Perhaps other people know what expansion plans are underway at their local airport.

David/MAN: 362 and counting "

AS STATED BEFORE i have said that you are infering that mancester is the natural replacement for heathrow.I didnt say u think mancester is going to overtake it, ive said u think its the natural replacement.

it isnt stansted is.
handle the fact that london will always have the biggest aiport because london is more important than mancester, when you can accept that your head wont be in the clouds.


the airport in doncaster is needed because mancester cannot grow indefinately.the north of england needs to exapnd, economy wise, therefore it makes sense to build a large international airport.

Tony Balir has stated at question time that he sees the new aiport as being the second heathrow, therefore i think that suggests it is going to be very important.
BA are said to be planning service from it as ar AA.

Its not for me to predcit what carriers are goign to be at an airportnot built yet only that mancester is going to be in for competition since the new airport is baa-backed and is said to be going to charge lower landing fees than mancester.

Ryanair, GO are also said to be interested as is Gill airways, with liverpool and newcastle set to lose out.

make no mistake 15 years from now and mancester will be overtaken by the new airport plus stansted because stansted is nearer to london and rightly or wrongly as far as the outside world is concerned, london is all that matters, especially since heathrow oculd fit 6-7 terminals at a push, likely to be six.

pressure will be on the localised airports, however nothing can ever replace heathrow.

your suggesting if heathrow was shut tomorrow mancester could easily replace it.

how can it when its in mancester and isnt near london?
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: UK Airports After Heathrow And Gatwick

Thu Aug 02, 2001 5:20 am

from the baa website(http://www.baa.co.uk/pdf/t5_5.pdf)

Why other airports are not alternatives
Some people argue that it is unnecessary and
wrong to expand Heathrow when other
airports, such as Stansted, are underused. But
it is not a case of ‘either/or’. Stansted’s capacity
plus that of Gatwick, Luton, City Airport and
Britain’s regional airports are needed, as well
as, not instead of, Terminal 5 if we are going
to meet people’s expectations to fly in the 21st
century. (Stansted is in fact the fastest growing
airport in Europe. It has gone from three
million passengers in 1994 to five million in
1995 and to seven million in 1998 and has
applied to the local council for approval to
complete the outline permission it already has
to handle around 15 million passengers a year.)
The same argument applies to regional airports
outside the South East. BAA strongly supports
the development of regional airports but
nobody believes (least of all the regional
airports themselves) that they are a substitute
for more capacity in the South East despite the
fact that they are growing 400% more quickly.
“No one in the North East or anywhere
else in the UK should be in any doubt that,
whatever measures we take to develop the
potential of our regional airports, it is
essential that demand is met where it
arises and, in particular, that the major
South East airports realise their full
capacity. Terminal 5 is therefore essential
both for the UK aviation industry and the
UK economy, including our regional
economies.”
Trevor Went, Managing Director of Newcastle
Airport, July 1997

so BAA say that heathrow is vital and that other airports arent the answer and that is heatrow ecame second rate than traffic would go to europe not britain.

Why we need a fifth terminal at Heathrow
Demand for air travel in the south-east is forecast to double in the next 20 years and it is estimated that there will be around 140 million passengers travelling through BAA's London airports in 2010/11. However, without the necessary airport infrastructure in place, this just won't be possible.




We need to see growth at all of London's airports and the rest of the UK but this extra capacity is needed in addition to - not instead of - Terminal 5.

The aviation industry is one of the UK's few remaining success stories and Heathrow's position is intrinsically linked to that success. Terminal 5 is vital for Heathrow's future and an essential part of meeting the demand to fly. It can be built in an environmentally responsible way and BAA has shown that it is committed to addressing local concerns.

If airlines are denied the opportunity to grow at Heathrow many of them will choose other European airports such as Paris, Frankfurt or Amsterdam to expand their business - not other UK airports.prehaps contacting BAA or looking at their website will help you to undertsand that london and the south east is the centre of aviation not mancester which will never be.




It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
David_itl
Posts: 5950
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

RE: UK Airports After Heathrow And Gatwick

Thu Aug 02, 2001 7:20 am

I keep forgetting to mention this...can anyone explain the phenomena of how the richest part of the country has a disproportionately large number of "low-cost" flights? Perhaps if these airlines would care to charge the prices they try to get away with in the North, and charge the Northern passenger the existing Southern prices, we might see some realignment of growth.

since the new airport is baa-backed and is said to be going to charge lower landing fees than mancester.

Is this the same BAA that publically backed the 2nd Manchester runway? Our airport fees have gone down 30% in 9 years and are being reduced by more than what the CAA is recommended.

"...has applied to the local council for approval to complete the outline permission it already has to handle around 15 million passengers a year."

Interesting. I was led to believe that approval for 25 million passengers per year had been given for Stansted. So it seems that Stansted, or "Stagnated" as my spellchecker wants to call it, can expand to a lot less passengers that MAN has currently.

BA are said to be planning service from it as ar AA.
I believe you are referring to this quote: "American airlines says it would relish being able to fly from an international airport in Yorkshire - if it is built.
The airline's UK general sales boss Ali Gayward said there was "plenty of potential" to develop its flight programme into regional airports."

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the implication of the second paragraph is that it is looking at the whole country. Yes, it's looking at Doncaster. In much the same way as CO are looking at EDI.

As for BA, please bear this in mind: at both BHX and MAN, they have substantial domestic and European services (though unfortunately through their franchisees) which could generate transit traffic from which they could develop some long-haul services. The only long-haul service offered is MAN-JFK with some suspicions that the other long-haul flights they offered faltered due to the invisible hand of the premium passengers being "reminded" of the services at LHR, even though they would have had the convenience of flying to the same destinations from their local.

Stansted is a lot nearer than london and the airport that rally took the buiscuitwas london luton

Looking at a map, I believe that Luton is approximately the same distance away from London as Stansted is; it's probably a little bit nearer.

I admit it. I was wrong. Perhaps I should not have bothered to read the original question of what would happen if Heathrow and Gatwick just got closed down by BAA and applied some outmoded logic in that airlines are starting to look outside London and that they may want to implement their plans more quickly than expected.

How many airlines are going to be like Malaysian in delaying the start of their service to Manchester and then see it outperform what they expected of it? All it takes is a leap of faith to test the water outside London and the let the population, be they in MAN, BHX, EDI, GLA, PIK, CWL, BRS, NCL or wherever, see if they can sustain a service. I have a sneaky feeling that they would.

David/MAN: 358 and counting
 
ukair
Posts: 261
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2001 11:36 am

RE: UK Airports After Heathrow And Gatwick

Thu Aug 02, 2001 8:20 am

You cannot be serious man! Look it's not going to happen ok? Why would BAA close down Heathrow or Gatwick? I can't understand where you are coming from.
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: UK Airports After Heathrow And Gatwick

Thu Aug 02, 2001 7:23 pm

i dont think any else does either.
face up to the fact that heathrow and gatwick arent going to close.
You said about airlines testing the water,t hats what CO re doing at stansted but you said it would fail.

so its alright for mancester and other to get new airlines but not for standsted?

edingburgh is to get transaltanic services, so whats your point? bristol and southampton are exapnding so whats your point?

i neversaid that other airports should dare have airlines flying to them, i support the idea of all british airports growing, ive simply maintained throughout that mancester wont beat heathrow, that yorkshires going to give it a run for its money and that if heathrow and gatwick shut tomoorw stansted would be the choice along with luton because they are nearer to london and london is the capitial city not mancester.


The reason why stansted is a base for ryanair and GO is because both realise that the aviation centre of britain is london not mancester anf that they would get more pax(for being nearer to london) than they would based from mancester.Buzz is based there because its owned by KLMuk, formerly air UK which had its base at stansted and norwich.

Easyjet only have liverpool to take ba on at mancester and because they are looking to get out of luton because of barclays bank extra fees(they own it).

British airways franchises arent the same as BA.If heathrow and gatwick shut tomorrow BA and one world would jump to stansted with ryanair and go joining at luton.

and besides do you really want mas flying over you, i dont and im on the flight path for heathrow!
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
paulc
Posts: 1440
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2001 10:42 pm

RE: UK Airports After Heathrow And Gatwick

Thu Aug 02, 2001 8:45 pm

I wish my local regional airport would get other scheduled airlines - its a bit boring with only BA Regional, British European and Scott Airways.

Regional airports also tend to be more expensive to fly from - and if this difference is significant then people will go to LHR or LGW rather than pay a lot more.

Yes - flying from a local is very convienient but it does not always come cheap.

English First, British Second, european Never!
 
757man
Posts: 355
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:59 am

RE: UK Airports After Heathrow And Gatwick

Fri Aug 03, 2001 2:25 am

Right, getting back onto the topic then....

The chances of both LHR and LGW closing are about as remote as getting a smile off Airtours cabin crew. Despite my rather bad feelings towards STN, even I would have to agree that IF both of the big boys were closed, then STN would benefit more than perhaps any other airport, especially for long haul flights. Luton may benefit from a few services, but their runway is even shorter than the one at BHX, so they would be very limited, unless they want a 747 failing to negotiate the runway and then rolling down the embankment straight onto the Vectra prodction line.

At least if STN was used, the facilities already exist to operate flights from. It would take a lot longer (and be more expensive) to build a totally new airport from scratch. Then perhaps the low cost carriers would be booted out of STN and they would expand from something small like Manston and then finally the latter would become an 'alternative' London airport, which is what STN currently is.

Manchester has it's own natural market too. Apart from the North of England, MAN snags quite a few BHX passengers, escpecially for holiday flights. There is a hell of a demand for flights from MAN and anyone who says there isn't is quite frankly talking out of their bottom.

BHX meanwhile has surprised many by how well it has done in the 1990's. A good variety of services are now offered and the only thing which is holding it back is the 2600m main runway, which will be extended in time.



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alski, ArtV, ba319-131, brilondon, crazytoaster, dn280tls, flyDTW1992, Google Adsense [Bot], GRIVely, lcycs300, ordpia, Putnik, rj968, SCQ83, StTim, Tigerguy and 307 guests