Just a basic question as to why Heathrow's domestic and regional connections are so limited, such as no connections to Exeter or Liverpool or Bristol to Heathrow. Is this due to train connections being more time/cost effective? Because we see numerous connecting domestic flights offered out of FRA or CDG.

Train and the M4 from Bristol make little need for an air link. Ryanair and easyjet also cover a lot of the pax heading from European destinations.

Liverpool may be a destination if runway 3 arrives, but its close proximity to Manchester and the potential connections through Manchester.

Exeter probably just isn't a big enough markek to justify using a slot, while passengers can head to Bristol if needs be.

A lot of passengers (not all) are going through FRA and AMS and the likes are going longhaul, that go from these smaller airports.

Liverpool has been mentioned in possible new destinations for Heathrow new runway.
Wouldn't Bristol and Exeter be too close for a Air service?

TheGeordielad wrote:

Liverpool has been mentioned in possible new destinations for Heathrow new runway.
Wouldn't Bristol and Exeter be too close for a Air service?

The reason I ask, Exeter is about 200 miles away from Heathrow via the M4 and M5, still quite a drive to make. The flight to City is about an hour via FlyBE.

Apart from the Southwest they have the main ones covered. Why do LPL when you serve MAN a couple of times a day. Personally I'm surprised they don't operate NQY as it's a popular tourist destination but in BAs eyes it probably a case of why waste a LHR on a small regional airport. Even if there is a 3rd runway BA won't use slots for the region's it'll be Flybe that does that and LHR knows it.

BA sold it's comprehensive UK regional network to Flybe several years ago in a move that contributed to it's 'London Airways' tag..

Well BA in the past have operated LGW to NQY with B734 and before that with former Brymon DHC7.

BA more or less have the UK well covered as far as domestic routes go although there could possibly be additional airports served that aren't already one being Guernsey and possibly Liverpool.

BA fly from London Heathrow to the following airports

Aberdeen
Belfast City
Edinburgh
Glasgow
Inverness
Leeds/Bradford
Manchester
Newcastle

London Gatwick to

Edinburgh
Glasgow
Jersey

London City to

Edinburgh
Glasgow
Isle of Man
Manchester

BA actually have quite a comprehensive domestic route network.

DariusBieber wrote:

TheGeordielad wrote:

Liverpool has been mentioned in possible new destinations for Heathrow new runway.
Wouldn't Bristol and Exeter be too close for a Air service?

The reason I ask, Exeter is about 200 miles away from Heathrow via the M4 and M5, still quite a drive to make. The flight to City is about an hour via FlyBE.

To be fair FlyBe operate with slower Dash8 turboprops rather than BA jets

TheGeordielad wrote:

DariusBieber wrote:

TheGeordielad wrote:

Liverpool has been mentioned in possible new destinations for Heathrow new runway.
Wouldn't Bristol and Exeter be too close for a Air service?

The reason I ask, Exeter is about 200 miles away from Heathrow via the M4 and M5, still quite a drive to make. The flight to City is about an hour via FlyBE.

To be fair FlyBe operate with slower Dash8 turboprops rather than BA jets

Doesn't BA own or operate the Dorniers? They would be a good choice for new routes to Exeter or Cornwall connections.

DariusBieber wrote:

TheGeordielad wrote:

DariusBieber wrote:

The reason I ask, Exeter is about 200 miles away from Heathrow via the M4 and M5, still quite a drive to make. The flight to City is about an hour via FlyBE.

To be fair FlyBe operate with slower Dash8 turboprops rather than BA jets

Doesn't BA own or operate the Dorniers? They would be a good choice for new routes to Exeter or Cornwall connections.

No LoganAir currently do I believe however Eastern uses a S-2000 on LCY-IOM for BA Cityflyer but it's only for that the route.

With regards to Exeter, the connectivity is pretty good to london with fast trains to Paddington once an hour, slower trains to Clapham once an hour, and a twice daily Flybe flight to LCY.

To be honest, I don't see much other benefit to having direct flights there, most people are likely to go to Bristol or even somewhere up North to fly internationally, and there are plenty of seasonal charters to holiday destinations.

Off the top of my head around 20% of the population are students too, so that reduces demand as we go home for half the year.

TheGeordielad wrote:

DariusBieber wrote:

TheGeordielad wrote:

To be fair FlyBe operate with slower Dash8 turboprops rather than BA jets

Doesn't BA own or operate the Dorniers? They would be a good choice for new routes to Exeter or Cornwall connections.

No LoganAir currently do I believe however Eastern uses a S-2000 on LCY-IOM for BA Cityflyer but it's only for that the route.

Ah right, those Dorniers are in BA's colors but are owned and operated by Sun-Air.

So, in an effort to retain marketshare, and/or to 'slot sit', should we expect a BA order for smaller aircraft (ATRs, or RJs), when/before the 3rd runway becomes active?

Rajahdhani wrote:

So, in an effort to retain marketshare, and/or to 'slot sit', should we expect a BA order for smaller aircraft (ATRs, or RJs), when/before the 3rd runway becomes active?

That really depends on what terminal 6 looks like.

Terminal 5 (British Airways and Iberia) is completely containerised. A regional jet or prop would not be compatible. BA would need to operate them from the new terminal if they did get into smaller aircraft, so not before the runway is built and the new terminal too.

Small country, limited demand, strong LCCs, therefore no profit potential.

Geoff

Cunard wrote:

Well BA in the past have operated LGW to NQY with B734 and before that with former Brymon DHC7.

BA more or less have the UK well covered as far as domestic routes go although there could possibly be additional airports served that aren't already one being Guernsey and possibly Liverpool.

BA fly from London Heathrow to the following airports

Aberdeen
Belfast City
Edinburgh
Glasgow
Inverness
Leeds/Bradford
Manchester
Newcastle

London Gatwick to

Edinburgh
Glasgow
Jersey

London City to

Edinburgh
Glasgow
Isle of Man
Manchester

BA actually have quite a comprehensive domestic route network.

Only if you ignore everywhere else in the UK with a commercial airport/field. Pre-privatisation British Airways was so much more comprehensive, even a helicopter division too.

I am totally aware of how BA looked in the regions before privatisation and afterwards as well as it's helicopter division headquartered at LGW and the Penzanze S-61 base, before privatisation BA was more comprehensive I totally agree but a lot has changed in the aviation industry since then as my local airport of Southampton had quite a respectable network from BA before selling BA Connect to Flybe in 2006.

I was just quoting British Airways current (2017) list of UK destinations.

Wasnt this the Little Red experiment that flopped? That was VS attempting to serve domestic from LHR with divested slots from BA.

Part of the reason for BA being accused of becoming "London Airways" was that after they divested BAConnect to Flybe you only could get to London from UK regional airports on the BA network, not from one regional airport to another. So adding service between more regional airports and London does nothing to remove the stigma.
Now lets look at the regional airports mentioned in the starting post:
Exeter - population 127,000. City council claims a travel-to-work-area population of 470,000. Airport 4 miles from city centre. 125mph train service to London taking around 2hrs 15min.
Liverpool - a major city, but its airport is just 30 miles from Manchester Airport, and their catchment areas overlap. 125mph train service to London taking 2 hours.
Bristol - 10th largest city in the UK. 125mph trains to London (at least 2 per hour) in 90 minutes. Airport is to the west of the city, which is notorious for traffic congestion.
It is notable that while Ryanair and easyJet, the two largest LCCs operating in the UK, have major operations at Liverpool (both) and Bristol (easyJet) neither operate any service at all to any London airport from there. This is basically because the O&D traffic either goes door to door by road, or uses the train, both methods avoid the hour-plus added to the journey for pre-flight security, boarding, and bag-drop, plus the time waiting for baggage at the other end. Manchester-London has no LCC competition either, it survives on people connecting at LHR.
Bristol and Liverpool both have many non-stop flights to destinations in Europe - so feeding into a London hub and then out again is uncompetitive in time and Bristol even manages transatlantic, while Liverpool leaches traffic to Manchester which has many intercontinental flights of its own as well as the connections at LHR.

Air only becomes competitive for O&D journeys to/from London when you start looking at airports in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and guess what, you actually get airlines competing for traffic on these routes.
.

As for other domestic destinations, would there be any demand for Cardiff, Sheffield/Doncaster, Norwich, or Durham?

GSP psgr wrote:

As for other domestic destinations, would there be any demand for Cardiff, Sheffield/Doncaster, Norwich, or Durham?

Same issue, really.
Cardiff has two 125mph trains to London each hour, taking around two hours, maybe a little quicker once the electrification is completed and the brand new rolling stock arrives. Not a busy airport - Bristol's catchment overlaps.

Doncaster has four 125mph trains an hour to London in 1hr 45min, again with new rolling stock arriving, and in addition the airport is well to the east of the conurbation, you effectively have to pass through or round Doncaster to get to it for most people. Superb long runway (ex RAF base) but loses traffic to LBA and EMA, even to MAN, so has no LCCs apart from Wizzair.

Norwich has slower trains, only 100mph, but still twice an hour and taking under 2 hours, and again with new trains due. A quiet airport.

Durham Tees Valley is dead on its feet as an commercial airport, it only had five flights from anywhere all day yesterday, three Fokker 70s and two Jetstream 41s. Says it all really. 44miles by road to Newcastle Airport which does have flights to London, 125mph trains to London from nearby Darlington in 2hrs 30 minutes.

I think people from outside the UK assume that airports are spaced more widely here than they actually are, and that train services are either non-existent or slow - they aren't, when you're travelling to/from London. Really, if the train takes under 2hr 30min to 3 hours, there isn't going to be much or any O&D traffic because it will undercut or equal the overall journey time due to security/check-in/baggage reclaim, and getting to/from airports.

BA has added to its domestic network from LHR in recent years - in 2010 it was down to just MAN, NCL, EDI, GLA and (I think) ABZ. The purchase of British Midland added BHD, and at the same time they reinstated LBA, which British Midland had dropped earlier. More recently INV joined the network.

Also throw in the Virgin Train seat sales then you really are looking away from planes as a means to travel to the capital. i'm daytripping down to London is September for just £22 return from Manchester. No airfare would be that low.

Poor Durham Tees Valley... I used to regularly fly through there when BMI did LHR MME. Last time I went through the place was a shell of its former self and they CHARGED us to use the airport. You had to buy a ticket to go airside to catch your flight from a parking ticket machine. The BMI lounge was a bar. It was pathetic. A long cry from the days when BMI had 3 or 4 dailies to LHR.

The main reason for BA's absence is the commercial high price of LHR slots, the best reason to build 3rd and 4th Runways

Andy33 wrote:

Norwich has slower trains, only 100mph, but still twice an hour and taking under 2 hours, and again with new trains due. A quiet airport.

An important point to demonstrate just how good the trains can be compared to flying is that Norwich and Exeter don't really have flight connections to to London due to trains, but there's a direct daily flight between the two, and that's mostly down to there not being any good train options.

In the UK, flying rarely makes sense when you have a direct train available. The only times it could do is peak times where the trains are ludicrously priced.

Country is not that small. train fares are ridiculously expensive and train journeys can be long. Also it's all about London, if you're in Glasgow and you want to go to Newcastle you need to connect in London. End of rant.

I flew U2 from EDI/GLA To BRS a few years ago, so there are internal flights.

Perhaps with NCL to GLA it would be worth doing.

You would longer at the airport than actually flying.

KLM, operating from Amsterdam Schipol (AMS) with it's 5 runways, pretty much offers the UK regional service that BA should and likely would be offering from LHR if that airport had more runways with unlimited capacity.

KLM offers a total of 15 UK destinations (not including LHR) from AMS, so that airport is truly the UK's regional hub. They fly to Inverness (INV), Aberdeen (ABZ), Glasgow (GLA), Edinburgh (EDI), Belfast (BHD), Newcastle (NCL), Durham Tees Valley (MME), Leeds (LBA), Humberside (HUY), Manchester (MAN), Birmingham (BHX), Norwich (NWI), Southampton (SOU), Bristol (BRS) and Cardiff (CWL). They attempted Liverpool (LPL) at one point but that was short lived and there are a few other airports they miss out on such as Doncaster/Sheffield (DSA) and Nottingham East Midlands (EMA).

The ironic thing is that a lot of airports that KLM don't fly to, would probably be viable to LHR on BA if the runway capacity and the right equipment was available (such as more E170's and E190's that BA Cityflyer currently operate mainly out of London City LCY). Even places that don't even have an airport at all like Carlisle, could I assume easily support at least 2 or 3 daily flights to LHR on an E170/E190.

Considering that KLM has flights from AMS to BRU which is only a distance of 99 miles and Lufthansa has flights from FRA to DUS which is 118, I don't think it would be inconceivable that BA could potentially have flights from LHR to Exeter (EXT) at 139 miles, Cardiff (CWL) at 125, Norwich (NWI) at 112, Nottingham East Midlands (EMA) at 101, Bristol (BRS) at 98 and even Birmingham (BHX) at 88 miles !!!

Now OF COURSE these flights would certainly not be serving much, if any, local O&D traffic between these places and London, the reason being as many posters have already mentioned, that train service in the UK is actually quite fast and convenient, at least to the capital . . . but they WOULD survive off connecting traffic feeding into to BA's enormous intercontinental long-haul network which is significantly larger than what KLM offers out of AMS as well as it's mid-haul European network. And it is indeed this connecting traffic which fuels KLM's UK network anyway, how much local traffic exists between Humberside or Norwich and Amsterdam ? Probably none, all those pax are likely connecting in AMS to other destinations beyond. Likewise with AMS to BRU, that's probably all connecting pax too . . .

So with unlimited capacity at LHR, we could easily see, in addition to all those close-by destination I already listed above, service to: Newquay (NQY), Jersey (JER), Guernsey (GCI), Liverpool (LPL), Doncaster/Sheffield (DSA), Humberside (HUY), Durham Tees Valley (MME), Isle of Man (IOM), Dundee (DND) and Derry (LDY).

This would probably require at least more than just one new runway however, probably 2 or 3, so considering that even a 3rd runway is still debatable at this stage, I doubt any of this will ever happen. It truly amazes me that Schipol, which is certainly in as densely a populated area as Heathrow, and requires new runways to be built on what is essentially reclaimed swampland (an engineering feat in its own right) somehow has managed to get to 5 already !!! All the more traffic for KLM then I suppose . . .

PPVLC wrote:

Country is not that small. train fares are ridiculously expensive and train journeys can be long. Also it's all about London, if you're in Glasgow and you want to go to Newcastle you need to connect in London. End of rant.

The route by train from Glasgow to Newcastle doesn't go within several hundred miles of London. There are some through trains that don't require a connection at all, and others that connect in Edinburgh. Journey time between 2hrs 30min and 2hrs 45 minutes. Between the through trains and the connections, about 3 trains every hour. One-way fares for Monday next week between £15 and £30 depending on departure time. Distance 173 miles. It's not all that fast, but will get faster once they finish electrifying the main route from Glasgow to Edinburgh.

There are also express buses, and of course many/most will go by car - its 150 miles by the fastest route.

Did you really travel by train via London? If so you would have needed two separate tickets, as there's no fare via London, for obvious reasons since the distance that way is 671 miles.
Or did you mean that you have to connect in London to get from Glasgow to Newcastle by air? Yes, that's true, because as several posters are pointing out, there's only a very small market for air travel in the UK over such short distances, unless there's a sea crossing involved. If there was a significant O&D market for flights between Glasgow and Newcastle, easyJet, who have based aircraft in both cities, would be all over it with an A319. If there was significant connecting traffic, flyBe, who have other routes to both airports, would give it a try with a Q400. BA don't have a monopoly in domestic flights in the UK, far from it.

westgate wrote:

So with unlimited capacity at LHR, we could easily see, in addition to all those close-by destination I already listed above, service to: Newquay (NQY), Jersey (JER), Guernsey (GCI), Liverpool (LPL), Doncaster/Sheffield (DSA), Humberside (HUY), Durham Tees Valley (MME), Isle of Man (IOM), Dundee (DND) and Derry (LDY).

This would probably require at least more than just one new runway however, probably 2 or 3, so considering that even a 3rd runway is still debatable at this stage, I doubt any of this will ever happen. It truly amazes me that Schipol, which is certainly in as densely a populated area as Heathrow, and requires new runways to be built on what is essentially reclaimed swampland (an engineering feat in its own right) somehow has managed to get to 5 already !!! All the more traffic for KLM then I suppose . . .

If BA were to have a fleet of small jets or Turboprops at LHR some of these routes might be viable, but not many. The charging structure makes anything sub 100 seats a guaranteed money pit. If LHR was forced by by R3 planning conditions to waive/substantially reduce charges for UK domestic routes on <100 seat aircraft things might look different. I would think routes already served in BA colours from other LON airports are the most likely to be seen at LHR. JER is almost a certainty, IOM might be in with a shout, and NQY would be a good seasonal route. After that I think MME, DND and LDY (a PSO route by BM from STN) are fairly unlikely. DSA is highly unlikely. Neither EI or KL should make LPL work, so I don't see it. If they could, I think BA would flesh out the timetables on the likes of INV and LBA. The planning constrictions need to be carefully written to avoid the danger that BA might fly E190s more frequently to MAN/NCL/EDI/GLA to take advantage of subsidised charges, rather than introduce new routes.

In total I make that 1-2 extra daily services to LBA, 1 to INV, 3-4 for JER, 1-2 for IOM, and 1 for NQY. In total thats only 10 slot pairs. BA have bought/sold/acquired many times that number of slots over the past decade, so the market can't be all that brilliant. If the government truly means what it say about UK connectivity to LHR, LHR's owners will have to be forced to encourage new UK domestic routes at viable frequency. Its excellent that flyBe are entering LHR, but competing with Dash-8s on trunk routes against BA is madness, I know the remedy slots are linked to those specific destinations, but surely using them to launch the likes of IOM/JER/DND etc would have been better for the UK.

GSP psgr wrote:

As for other domestic destinations, would there be any demand for Cardiff, Sheffield/Doncaster, Norwich, or Durham?

Cardiff does have a London flight to LCY with Flybe twice daily and its struggling against the train average LF of 22. If it was to LHR and accessed it's long haul network then it probably could do better but honestly I'd rather more long haul destinations from Cardiff itself than connections via LHR, the airport has an excellent hub service via AMS and Qatar is due to start in 2018.

PPVLC wrote:

rutankrd wrote:

I would expect much more considering what they charge, a first class ticket can cost £240 and I personally think it's outrageously expensive. I could take that smelly rickety train between Carlisle and Newcastle and then get a flight to London as there are no direct flights between Carlisle and London, Stobart keeps promising them but they never happen. Anyway, I digress but my opinion is the same: train journeys are long and expensive in the UK.

For a distance of 304 miles each way, at a fare of £240.00 the train fare works out at 78p per mile in 1st class. £182 in standard 60p per mile. Consider that the HMRC reimburse business milage at up to 48p/mile its very competitive with driving. The journey time is 3 hours 21 minutes on the trains I selected. Realistically, I don't see how journey times, door to door, for Carlisle-Southend would be quicker door-to door.
Lets assume equal travel time from your house to the station/airport, 30 mins check-in at Carlisle, 1 hour flight time, 30 mins to get through SEN and get to the station and an hour to fro travel to Fenchurch St. 3 hours, at absolute best. Cheapest fare I can find for BM's LDY-STN (also a PSO route) is £245 each way on Monday - the same price as the train.

So while your opinion may be that rail journey are slow and expensive in the UK, Im not sure its accurate. Certainly, there is very little to save, either time or cost by using regional aircraft. On that basis, I can't see air working on a point-to-point basis on <300 mile land journeys when intercity trains run at feasible frequency.

This is pet bugbear of mine having lived in the UK for many years. Train fares in the UK are ridiculously expensive... as a tourist and a previous resident I am still shocked at the cost.

I can commute in Perth on the train at up to 110kph for $6.60 for 30km ($0.22 per KM).
To fly PER SYD next Friday, would cost $835 rtn on QF (6569km or $0.12 per km).
Jetstar SYD OOL for $200 for 1375km or $0.14/km
Perth to Albany, full fare $475 for 750km or $0.63/km. Or Geraldton for similar distance and price.

Richmond to London Waterloo, my old route, 10 miles (16km) 9.50 GBP one way on the tube $15.49 or almost $1 per km.
Richmond to London 5.30 GBP single peak, $8.64 or $0.54 per km
Bournemouth to London 68 GBP for 109 miles or $110 for 175km ($0.62/km) and a 2hr journey.

How can it cost the same to fly a regional carrier to a small town (sorry Albany and Gero) as it does to get a train that carries 1000s and 1000s of passengers? Something is amiss here. And Jetstar can do a weekend in the gold coast during the middle of school holidays for half the coast of a British train.

UK trains ARE slow and expensive. There are enough people in the UK trying to get from A to B that you could operate 737s or A320s. If you removed all the taxes; rip off airports charges and simplified the whole airport security process airlines would provide some much needed competition to the trains and the motorways.

BrianDromey wrote:

If BA were to have a fleet of small jets or Turboprops at LHR some of these routes might be viable, but not many. The charging structure makes anything sub 100 seats a guaranteed money pit.

. . . but then how does KLM make all those routes work, such as to HUY and MME, where they're pretty much the only airline servings those airports ? How is their charging structure different ?

BrianDromey wrote:

LHR was forced by by R3 planning conditions to waive/substantially reduce charges for UK domestic routes on <100 seat aircraft things might look different.

Exactly, I would assume that if R3 was in fact built someday there probably would be some requirements for increased UK regional service. But I'm mostly looking at this from the perspective of AMS and it's 5 runways. If LHR had that many, it would indeed make many routes viable that are unthinkable of today. Whether they would actually work is another story, but for example somewhere like MME may be viable because it's far enough away from London to have the advantage of local O&D traffic on the route as well as connecting. I would think that even with 5 runways, LHR would still be maxed out to capacity, there's just that much more demand into London and the South East of England than to Amsterdam and the Netherlands, and that some intervention would still be needed in such a scenario to make sure the smaller regional cities would get some service . . . such as what you already mentioned . . .

BrianDromey wrote:

The planning constrictions need to be carefully written to avoid the danger that BA might fly E190s more frequently to MAN/NCL/EDI/GLA to take advantage of subsidised charges, rather than introduce new routes.