Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
YIMBY
Posts: 724
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:14 am

Andy33 wrote:

The perennial hub to hub railway proposal that you avoided mentioning but others have, suffers from two problems - one is the incredibly high cost of land acquisition and tunnelling, and the other is the logistical one of whether it is technically landside or airside. If it is landside, passengers will need to go through UK immigration at their arrival airport, adding lots of time to the connection.


I think you got the idea here.

UK and the rest of Europe are very different, particularly on legislation regarding to ownership. In UK ownership, particularly of land is sacred. If you own a piece of land, you may do almost whatever, like prohibiting others trespassing, even if it is an empty faraway terrain in the middle of the forest. Confiscating the land for government is very difficult and expensive, even more for a private or semiprivate company, so in practice whoever wants to build a runway, railway or highway has to offer so much money that the landowner accepts the offer voluntarily. For highways you can make a curve in the middle, if one landowner refuses to sell. For a runway it would look funny.

Add to that the poor quality of the rock which makes tunneling very expensive.

While almost every other country could connect the airports with a high speed train link (e.g. LHR-LCY & LGW-STN connecting at Trafalgar Square, and possible circular airside links) with a couple of billion Euros, in UK that would cost tens of billions £.

Andy33 wrote:
If it is airside, the proponents need to explain how it is possible to maintain a secure border along 30+ miles of railway, especially in the event of trains breaking down or other incidents requiring evacuation. This certainly isn't done anywhere else in the world. Now it was done to an extent in communist East Germany for a strictly limited number of trains a day, by operating a shoot-to-kill policy, but this is scarcely acceptable in a democracy!


In the US you always change to landside when connecting, so TATL pax may not even expect airside connection, even if it would be luxury. It could be arranged, though. Even in the airport in case of a fire you will be evacuated out into non-sterile space.
 
StTim
Posts: 3691
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:35 am

YIMBY wrote:
In the US you always change to landside when connecting, so TATL pax may not even expect airside connection.


And that is one major reason why I will never transit through the US. So GB to NZ through LAX not a viable option compared to going via Singapore or other equivalent.
 
JibberJim
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 1:33 pm

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:42 am

YIMBY wrote:
In the US you always change to landside when connecting, so TATL pax may not even expect airside connection, even if it would be luxury. It could be arranged, though. Even in the airport in case of a fire you will be evacuated out into non-sterile space.


It is not in the UK's, let alone, London's or the South East of England's interest to have more connecting passengers at all, from a social benefit there's almost none - you can already fly anywhere you're likely to want to go at good times, very, very few routes will be opened and few more convenient timings. Financially it doesn't help either, the rents you extract out of the transfer passengers is tiny - it's not Dubai that also gets the benefit of stop-overs, the London holiday market is already there, more connections won't change that, and you cannot price the actual transfer high as that would just move people to other airports. There's no way you could get a return on investment for a transfer railway between airports.

Minimising transfers at LHR should actually be the current aim - very few should fly JFK-LHR-europe for example, there will be other routes, and it's not in London's interest to boost capacity even more on LHR-JFK, there's more than enough. Transfer passengers should only be encouraged for new routes, so e.g. MSY-LHR-europe if they're needed to make the economic case for MSY as that actually helps London.
 
skipness1E
Posts: 4784
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:47 am

flyingclrs727 wrote:
If LGW had a second runway, perhaps it would be possible for LGW to be used as a hub by one of the alliances.

1) Alliances don't hub, airlines do. Indeed even T2 at LHR has zero STAR ALLIANCE branding.
2) Even if one alliance did propose to move, their airlines would not
Skyteam : KLM and Air France would not leave LHR
STAR : Lufthnasa group would up-sticks to Gatters?
Oneworld : BA move out to....well you get the idea.

This is a notion only ever seen on airliners.net
 
User avatar
Jayafe
Posts: 1224
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:12 pm

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:48 am

seahawk wrote:
From an operational stand point LGW needs the second runway more desperately than LHR needs the third, because with a plane stuck on the runway LGW is closed.


That´s is simply not true. I suggest you educate yourself a bit, even through Google Maps. LGW does have a a 2nd runaway, just can't be used at the same time as both are too close to each other. In case of an isolated incident, operations can be swapped.
 
Jetty
Posts: 1284
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:27 pm

Re: LHR - What is plan B?o

Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:01 am

flyingclrs727 wrote:
Well AMS has crosswind runways which LHR no longer has.

That's why governments have the power of eminent domain. How is it that the Netherlands, a small very densely populated country, has protected it's primary international airport and been able to expand it over the years? The UK could have protected one or two areas suitable to a major 4 runway hub but didn't.

And they reserved space for 2 more runways. Amazing how poor long term planning in London is in comparison.
 
User avatar
chunhimlai
Posts: 598
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:03 am

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:52 am

Arion640 wrote:
chunhimlai wrote:
Plan B : LGW
Plan C : Boris Island
Plan D : STN
Plan E : LTN
Plan F : BHX
Plan G : Severn Airport


The severn airport, more of a pipe dream than Boris Island!


therefore it is plan g
 
Candid76
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 5:10 am

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 12:16 pm

Minimising transfers at LHR should actually be the current aim - very few should fly JFK-LHR-europe for example, there will be other routes, and it's not in London's interest to boost capacity even more on LHR-JFK, there's more than enough. Transfer passengers should only be encouraged for new routes, so e.g. MSY-LHR-europe if they're needed to make the economic case for MSY as that actually helps London.[/quote]

Some of the thinner long haul routes through LHR will be reliant on transfer traffic to some extent, but the trunk routes would only need it to maintain high frequencies, not the existence of the routes. There could and should be better use of existing UK airport capacity going forward, with or without a third runway at LHR, and even if it is approved it will take a long time to build. In 3-4 years time Manchester will have a state of the art new terminal with good transfer capabilities, and hence the thicker long haul routes should be served from MAN (as some already are) to serve its wide catchment area and some transfer traffic from/to Europe, which then takes the pressure off LHR to a degree. There has to be some joined up thinking though - if fares are cheaper from LHR than MAN then some people from the North will still use LHR. On some routes that are premium heavy out of London due to its unique economic advantages but not so from the North, the airlines may have a bigger problem filling Y and hence offer cheap fares that pull non-London traffic down there from regions within MAN's catchment area.

BHX also has potential to act as an overflow for London traffic especially once HS2 opens and this should also be factored in to the debate.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 12:33 pm

Jayafe wrote:
seahawk wrote:
From an operational stand point LGW needs the second runway more desperately than LHR needs the third, because with a plane stuck on the runway LGW is closed.


That´s is simply not true. I suggest you educate yourself a bit, even through Google Maps. LGW does have a a 2nd runaway, just can't be used at the same time as both are too close to each other. In case of an isolated incident, operations can be swapped.


I thought they would be to close to each other to operate one with an aircraft stuck on the other.
 
skipness1E
Posts: 4784
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 12:38 pm

Candid76 wrote:
Minimising transfers at LHR should actually be the current aim - very few should fly JFK-LHR-europe for example, there will be other routes, and it's not in London's interest to boost capacity even more on LHR-JFK, there's more than enough. Transfer passengers should only be encouraged for new routes, so e.g. MSY-LHR-europe if they're needed to make the economic case for MSY as that actually helps London.

Except the whole BA/AA JV relies on transfer traffic over LHR.If you closed all of LHR-JFK it still wouldn't put a dent in the capacity issues at LHR.
LHR is a BA hub and a huge transfer point to Oneworld, hence the heavy traffic and volume on LHR-MAD/HEL, it all goes to the bottom line.
Who is going to say to a commercial entitiy to stop selling tickets on xyz-LHR-JFK if it's profitable? That's meddling beyond the remit of anyone, one bad year can kill almost any carrier, theymake money how and when they can, and LHR-JFK is a cash cow that supports other parts of the businesses of those who fly it. You can't have a global hub then complain that it competes er....globally! We don't live (yet) in a planned economy where a Minister of the Crown decides how much transfer traffic an airline should be allowed to funnel through each hub, that's micromanagement gone nuts. Vote Corbyn/McDonnell if you fancy some of that.

Existing UK airport capacity has nothing to do with the squeeze on London airport capacity. No more than Prestwick helps out in Scotland having been grossly underused since 1964. If my West London based boss is off to the US office on business and his EA decides to book him on a flight out of Birmingham, do you think she's doing her job? No, because the reason we are based on the M4 corridor is because we have access to LHR and all the choice that comes with it. And she'd be a former EA very quickly if she did.

Why did they build a second runway at MAN over those lovely green fields instead of making better use of LPL and LBA? Why were BA allowed to have T5 built for them when they were already dominant at LGW North? Because the market demanded it, easy as,so serve the market or watch the taxes and business we need go elsewhere. Manchester understood that when they built R2, so be clear BHX has nothing to say about London airport capacity.
Last edited by skipness1E on Fri Mar 09, 2018 12:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
Cunard
Posts: 2512
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:45 pm

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 12:44 pm

Skip

Whenever LHR is mentioned on these forums doesn't it get tiresome having to explain the same thing over and over again to those posters who don't fully understand the situation, ''it grinds my gears'' as Peter Griffin would say!
94 Countries, 327 Destinations Worldwide, 32 Airlines, 29 Aircraft Types, 182 Airports, 335 Flights.
 
skipness1E
Posts: 4784
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 12:48 pm

Cunard wrote:
Skip

Whenever LHR is mentioned on these forums doesn't it get tiresome having to explain the same thing over and over again to those posters who don't fully understand the situation, ''it grinds my gears'' as Peter Griffin would say!

Agreed.
And there are so many threads with a goldmine of great input form so many posters which are seemingly forgotten overnight, and then BANG!
Groundhog Day and we're off again
#facepalm :)
 
Egerton
Posts: 864
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 am

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 12:52 pm

R3 at LHR is moving politically from debating if it is a good idea (it is agreed), to how to beat the monopoly operator over the head to provide a fixed price for it in terms of what airlines will pay. The airlines say the landing charges etc should not increase, and this needs to be a fixed part of their commercial deal. If there is no commercial deal, there will be no R3.

The airlines are insisting that LHR is by far better for the 4 UK nations than Gatwick, and if the monopoly operator will not get its act together they can build the runway (it is a minor cost in the £14 billion), but the passenger terminal and other expensive stuff should be financed, owned, built and run only after a competition between others. This will need new legislation, after a monopoly investigation.

So things are still moving forward. The recording of the Commons Select Committee on 20th Feb 2018 is on
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Search?
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 1981
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:18 pm

How sacrosanct is LHR's nightime curfew?...perhaps an interim solution there...


Faro
The chalice not my son
 
Andy33
Posts: 2563
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:30 am

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:43 pm

Faro wrote:
How sacrosanct is LHR's nightime curfew?...perhaps an interim solution there...


Faro


Very sacrosanct. Absolute political suicide to change it. Lots of highly marginal parliamentary seats under the flightpath.
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:49 pm

I still think plan B should be finding land somewhere in the middle of England to build a new airport and build HS3 through whatever to connect all the major cities to it. Something with 4-6 runways or more. Basically something that would essentially become THE airport of England/Scotland, and even Wales.

Of course that's such a huge pipe dream it really isn't worth considering. The cost alone would make the new Dreadnaught SSBNs look cheap. :p But I can dream.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12856
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:10 pm

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
I still think plan B should be finding land somewhere in the middle of England to build a new airport and build HS3 through whatever to connect all the major cities to it. Something with 4-6 runways or more. Basically something that would essentially become THE airport of England/Scotland, and even Wales.

Of course that's such a huge pipe dream it really isn't worth considering. The cost alone would make the new Dreadnaught SSBNs look cheap. :p But I can dream.


The UK isn't a big country but its big enough to need more than one major airport servicing the entire country.
 
User avatar
readytotaxi
Posts: 7330
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:09 am

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 4:44 pm

Lots of lovely space at Wisley, just 10 miles south of Heathrow, lets develope that, a few hundred yards from the A3 and the M25. It was ment to be.

Image


:stirthepot:
you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
Growing older, but not up.
 
RobertPhoenix
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:00 am

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:26 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
Only in the UK could 3 runways be considered adequate for the busiest international hub in the world.

Two things.

LHR is no longer the world's busiest (nor 2nd busiest) int'l gateway. That would be DXB and HKG, respectively.

Second, both of those also only have two concurrently active runways.... though to be fair, they're well on their way to getting more (sister airport and expansion).


Without mentioning any particular aircraft types, for obvious reasons, those airports do have a much larger average aircraft capacity.

Aircraft sizes are increasing at Heathrow, and if Wikipedia is to be believed the number of passengers per aircraft movement at Heathrow increased from 100 in 1986 to 137 in 2003 and to 166 in 2017
By contrast Dubai was behind in 2003 at 122 but was already at 200 in 2016

So perhaps what is most urgent at Heathrow is more terminal space to handle bigger aircraft. In addition the newer larger aircraft are quieter, so that would help the local residents as well !
 
User avatar
spinotter
Posts: 779
Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 1:37 am

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:28 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Geoff1947 wrote:
Many believe we already fly too often and should be reducing not increasing capacity. People don’t see the need for other than O&D. A transit hub at AMS suits us fine. We on A.net think air travel is a good thing most people don’t.

The answer is: "What are unsubstantiated anecdotal statements"... for $500, Alex. :roll:


You don't think it's possible that human beings are already placing an unacceptable burden on our biosphere? For mileage runs and similar nonsense?
 
JibberJim
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 1:33 pm

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:30 pm

readytotaxi wrote:
Lots of lovely space at Wisley, just 10 miles south of Heathrow, lets develope that, a few hundred yards from the A3 and the M25. It was ment to be.
:stirthepot:


They can't even get a few houses built on it, let alone an airfield - although perhaps your sugggestion will be a good way to get the locals embracing the new village!
 
BHXLOVER
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 2:20 pm

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:51 pm

Geoff1947 wrote:
If the solution is a third runway at LHR , what is the problem ?!!

Geoff


Politicians !!
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1690
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:15 pm

Seems to me there is no plan B. Just keep trying and delaying until it finally gets built (or doesn't) and live with the consequences.
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
tonyban
Posts: 262
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 4:55 am

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:40 pm

The area to the north, Simpson, Harlington and Cranford Park have huge open areas that could potentially serve as expansion areas for the airport.
There would be a lot of arguments and red tape to overcome but these all could be looked at. Am I wrong or right ?
 
skipness1E
Posts: 4784
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:46 pm

Sipson is the location of Runway 3 and is pretty much owned by HAL
 
jubguy3
Posts: 514
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 6:18 am

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:58 pm

Clearly because nobody involved with the situation has any idea what they're doing, LHR needs to mitigate traffic as much as possible. Move as much connecting traffic as possible elsewhere and only keep the critical alliance routes at LHR.


This thread is full of people who have no idea what they're talking about and tons of people who enjoy being angry just to be angry. "They're not British so they don't understand!!" With absolutely no explanation as to what they see correct.
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1690
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 7:23 pm

jubguy3 wrote:
Move as much connecting traffic as possible elsewhere and only keep the critical alliance routes at LHR.
Hubs don't work like that.
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
User avatar
flyingphil
Posts: 310
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 2:56 am

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 7:42 pm

An interesting proposal to extend the existing northern runway to make it into two runways.. yes I thought it was bonkers at first, but the website shows it has some high profile backers.. seems a low risk solution..
http://www.heathrowhub.com/

I don’t see a third runway at LHR being opened in the next 20 years or so.. moving a motorway, knocking down Willie Walsh’s office, hotels, etc, etc..

I would have thought that Gatwick and Stansted are better candidates for additional runways while the Heathrow saga drags on..

At one time London was surrounded by airports... Hatfield, Radlett, Leavesden, Wisley, Brooklands.. plus we still have Northolt, Biggin Hill, Farnborough, Dunsfold, North Weald, Fairoaks, Blackbush, Denham, Stapleford, etc .. as usual lack of planning mean none can be developed.

Southend can be expanded a bit, good rail links with London, but fairly short runway with little room for expansion.
Luton is hemmed in by a cliff at one end of the runway.. but has good and improving rail links..

Will check back on this thread in ten years or so.. and we will be debating the same points ..
 
Candid76
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 5:10 am

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 8:02 pm

Sorry Skip, you've missed my point, although it would help if I had actually used the quote function correctly - the first paragraph of my post was a quote from post number 22 on this thread. Shows how often I post on this site nowadays!

As I understand it, this thread is supposed to be about what would happen if R3 does not get built. I wouldn't expect your West London based boss to fly out of BHX post HS2, but what if your office is near King's Cross and it is 40 minutes from Euston directly to BHX on HS2? The issue here is that even with larger aircraft types capacity at LHR is finite, so without R3 how could that additional demand be catered for? MAN has a huge catchment area and don't you think that, using your own analogy, if there is a wider selection of direct business routes from there then businesses may be encouraged to locate on the M56 corridor rather than just along the M4 corridor, if they don't need to be in London (some do). It's not a LHR vs. MAN issue, it's a "UK plc" issue - as is R3. But we're not meant to be discussing that, we're discussing what the Plan B is without R3.

To address your point on hubs, yes I obviously know how the hub and spoke model works. However, if (here we go again) R3 does not get built, surely it would be useful to have a secondary hub somewhere that has a large market of its own, rather than just trying to replicate LHR at Gatwick.

I think that R3 will get built, and it seems to be edging forward, but if (and it's a big if), there is substantial growth in demand between now and then, there has to be some kind of plan to provide that interim capacity. I'm assuming that if R3 gets approved then Gatters doesn't get R2, though I could be wrong. In my view, that's where the other developments come in - MAN TP, HS2 and possible expansion of BHX.
 
User avatar
TedToToe
Posts: 626
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2014 11:43 pm

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 8:12 pm

flyingphil wrote:
An interesting proposal to extend the existing northern runway to make it into two runways.. yes I thought it was bonkers at first, but the website shows it has some high profile backers.. seems a low risk solution..
http://www.heathrowhub.com/

Whilst construction costs are lower, its Achilles heel, I believe, is the lack of noise respite because runway alternation is much more limited.
Last edited by TedToToe on Fri Mar 09, 2018 8:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
jubguy3
Posts: 514
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 6:18 am

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 8:14 pm

cledaybuck wrote:
jubguy3 wrote:
Move as much connecting traffic as possible elsewhere and only keep the critical alliance routes at LHR.
Hubs don't work like that.


Thanks for the input!! :smile:
 
skipness1E
Posts: 4784
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:10 pm

jubguy3 wrote:
Clearly because nobody involved with the situation has any idea what they're doing, LHR needs to mitigate traffic as much as possible. Move as much connecting traffic as possible elsewhere and only keep the critical alliance routes at LHR.


This thread is full of people who have no idea what they're talking about and tons of people who enjoy being angry just to be angry. "They're not British so they don't understand!!" With absolutely no explanation as to what they see correct.

This is not what LHR are doing.
They are not mitigating.
They are not moving connecting traffic elsewhere.
How could they? They can’t instruct another busines in that manner.
They don’t own another airport as the BAA once did, hence they are not “mitigating” (really?) to a competitor.
What do I see “correct”? Well they are building T2 out and planning a T3 rebuild. Agree with that. If there’s no R3 then HAL will still be running a very profitable business and be looking to grow LHR where possible without losing feed. i.e. What they’ve been doing since T5 went up.
What’s a “critical alliance route”? Is that more or less profitable than a really decent p2p? Do Vueling deserve to be kicked to Gatwick? No.
It’s not the 1970s when HMG decided Air Canada needed to move to Stansted. It’s a free market and you need to understand HAL don’t have the lower to decide on the strategic level who serves LHR.
 
jubguy3
Posts: 514
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 6:18 am

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Sat Mar 10, 2018 2:21 am

skipness1E wrote:
jubguy3 wrote:
Clearly because nobody involved with the situation has any idea what they're doing, LHR needs to mitigate traffic as much as possible. Move as much connecting traffic as possible elsewhere and only keep the critical alliance routes at LHR.


This thread is full of people who have no idea what they're talking about and tons of people who enjoy being angry just to be angry. "They're not British so they don't understand!!" With absolutely no explanation as to what they see correct.

This is not what LHR are doing.
They are not mitigating.
They are not moving connecting traffic elsewhere.
How could they? They can’t instruct another busines in that manner.
They don’t own another airport as the BAA once did, hence they are not “mitigating” (really?) to a competitor.
What do I see “correct”? Well they are building T2 out and planning a T3 rebuild. Agree with that. If there’s no R3 then HAL will still be running a very profitable business and be looking to grow LHR where possible without losing feed. i.e. What they’ve been doing since T5 went up.
What’s a “critical alliance route”? Is that more or less profitable than a really decent p2p? Do Vueling deserve to be kicked to Gatwick? No.
It’s not the 1970s when HMG decided Air Canada needed to move to Stansted. It’s a free market and you need to understand HAL don’t have the lower to decide on the strategic level who serves LHR.


Inaction = consequences.. If London wants to keep passing the buck around, they're going to just have to accept that connecting traffic will have to disappear from LHR. Instead of saying "London can't tell private companies what to do", maybe advocate for them to have more control over the situation and allow them to reallocate traffic and work with major British aviation companies to figure out what works to keep London airports growing. Otherwise, British Airways is going to suffer, smaller British carriers will suffer, oneworld will suffer. Someone needs to take control and figure out what to do.
 
Andy33
Posts: 2563
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:30 am

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:39 am

jubguy3 wrote:
Inaction = consequences.. If London wants to keep passing the buck around, they're going to just have to accept that connecting traffic will have to disappear from LHR. Instead of saying "London can't tell private companies what to do", maybe advocate for them to have more control over the situation and allow them to reallocate traffic and work with major British aviation companies to figure out what works to keep London airports growing. Otherwise, British Airways is going to suffer, smaller British carriers will suffer, oneworld will suffer. Someone needs to take control and figure out what to do.


And who exactly is "London"?
It is all very well saying "someone needs to take control". You need to define who the someone is. Are you talking about the United Kingdom Government, the Mayor of London, Heathrow Airport Ltd (who own the airport lock stock and barrel), British Airways? None of these organisations, including the Government, have the legal power to reallocate traffic. It would be necessary to pass legislation to create the power. But there's no way that the current government is going to propose that, because their entire political philosophy is based on government not interfering in the market, and they have for years campaigned for election on this philosophy.
You might as well expect Donald Trump to remove all border controls with Mexico.
 
SkyVoice
Posts: 399
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2017 9:34 pm

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:46 am

So, which of the following do you think will happen first?
(1) A third runway is built and opens at either Heathrow (LHR) OR Gatwick (LGW);
(2) The new Berlin International Airport (BER) is completed and opens for business;
(3) Construction is completed on the Jeddah Tower in Saudi Arabia, and the Tower is opened with tenants.

Construction on the Jeddah Tower is moving at a snail's pace, while the other projects are stalled, either SNAFUed or FUBARed. Have some fun with this, and thank you in advance for your answers!
"Facing a crisis does not not build one's character, it reveals it."

"Tough times don't last. Tough people do."

- Robert H. Schuller
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13224
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Sat Mar 10, 2018 6:03 am

spinotter wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Geoff1947 wrote:
Many believe we already fly too often and should be reducing not increasing capacity. People don’t see the need for other than O&D. A transit hub at AMS suits us fine. We on A.net think air travel is a good thing most people don’t.

The answer is: "What are unsubstantiated anecdotal statements"... for $500, Alex.

You don't think it's possible that human beings are already placing an unacceptable burden on our biosphere? For mileage runs and similar nonsense?

Nope, and despite the feigned virtue-signaling, neither do the likes of you-- else you would've castrated yourself and/or reduced the "burden" by 1 already. :roll:


cledaybuck wrote:
jubguy3 wrote:
Move as much connecting traffic as possible elsewhere and only keep the critical alliance routes at LHR.

Hubs don't work like that.

:checkmark:
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
Geoff1947
Posts: 628
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 11:28 pm

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Sat Mar 10, 2018 9:05 am

LAX772LR wrote:
spinotter wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
The answer is: "What are unsubstantiated anecdotal statements"... for $500, Alex.

You don't think it's possible that human beings are already placing an unacceptable burden on our biosphere? For mileage runs and similar nonsense?

Nope, and despite the feigned virtue-signaling, neither do the likes of you-- else you would've castrated yourself and/or reduced the "burden" by 1 already. :roll:


Hope you pick some helpful courses when you are old enough to go to high school. Education is a wonderful thing.

Please try to see air travel for what it is. It is discretionary and non-essential. Look what happens to demand when you have a major security or economic crisis.

Push up prices at LHR and they’ll do just fine as will all of us who live around London. Sorry we can’t be more like the US which would make you feel less disturbed.

Geoff
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13224
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Sat Mar 10, 2018 9:48 am

Geoff1947 wrote:
Hope you pick some helpful courses when you are old enough to go to high school. Education is a wonderful thing.

Please try to see air travel for what it is. It is discretionary and non-essential. Look what happens to demand when you have a major security or economic crisis.

Push up prices at LHR and they’ll do just fine as will all of us who live around London. Sorry we can’t be more like the US which would make you feel less disturbed.

Geoff

You babble about "education," yet proceed to make a post rife with assumption-- that's not exactly what one could call a cogent response :razz:
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
vahancrazy
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 5:54 pm

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Sun Mar 11, 2018 7:31 am

It is quite sad to see how UK wasted at least 30y to seriously start expanding LHR.
At this pace the third runway will be ready after 2030 and it will still be not enough to maxime LHR potential.

Therfore, I would say LHR will keep attracting even more O&D and loosing billions in revenues from all transfers whom will travel via of AMS,CDG,FRA, etc.
Only plan B related to LHR I see is IAG/BA private plan B to gather transfers via MAD and DUB.
If they strenghten coop with AY they will have also a solution for far East Asia.
 
Cunard
Posts: 2512
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:45 pm

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:50 am

skipness1E wrote:
Sipson is the location of Runway 3 and is pretty much owned by HAL


Skip

I can not believe that you had to explain that piece of information.

It just goes to prove and back up our previous comments!
94 Countries, 327 Destinations Worldwide, 32 Airlines, 29 Aircraft Types, 182 Airports, 335 Flights.
 
User avatar
spinotter
Posts: 779
Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 1:37 am

Re: LHR - What is plan B?

Wed Mar 14, 2018 9:17 pm

Geoff1947 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
spinotter wrote:
You don't think it's possible that human beings are already placing an unacceptable burden on our biosphere? For mileage runs and similar nonsense?

Nope, and despite the feigned virtue-signaling, neither do the likes of you-- else you would've castrated yourself and/or reduced the "burden" by 1 already. :roll:


Hope you pick some helpful courses when you are old enough to go to high school. Education is a wonderful thing.

Please try to see air travel for what it is. It is discretionary and non-essential. Look what happens to demand when you have a major security or economic crisis.

Push up prices at LHR and they’ll do just fine as will all of us who live around London. Sorry we can’t be more like the US which would make you feel less disturbed.

Geoff


No, it is not true that yearly increases in our mileage runs are beneficial to us or to the environment. I no longer drive a car - only bicycle. I avoid trips by plane or otherwise. I am thus wise beyond your reckoning. No CO2, and a self-sustaining life. The best human characteristics. If we continue to pollute thusly, we will die, and I say good riddance.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos