Heathrows 3rd? I am more interested in Exeter's 6th!

LHR became a victim of its own success as for decades it was the top international airport with the most international destinations/connections.

If it cannot be both a transiting and an O&D airport then the question is what should it be? As most pax do not care where they are transiting as long as the connections are doable and convenient, LGW can be expanded to become more of a connecting airport. Keep LHR as is but invest in the other airports - better connecting them to central London too.

The centralized approach to building CDG was often given as an example but CDG was an empty white elephant for a decade if not longer.

chunhimlai wrote:

To be honest, to compete to nearby EU and ME airport, HAL have to think about 4th runway once 3rd runway completed.

Instead, I prefer Heathrow Hub project with new north runway on the 3rd runway site and extended concourse.

Why does LHR need 24,000+ foot long runways? Holy cow.

MontyP wrote:

Metchalus wrote:

edealinfo wrote:

As far as I recall, the 3rd runway was approved a few years ago.
1) Has there been any progress....meaning have they acquired the land for it and demolished al the structures on it.
2) Has the runway construction begun? If not, what are the general proposed dates for it?
3) When it a realistic timeframe for when the first flight will land on the third runway?
Thanks.

1) They own a considerable number of houses in the area but they don't own all of the actual land.

2) No and there aren't any really.

3) If they started construction today around 2025. But that's a massive if and it honestly may never happen.

2025? How on earth could they do the amount of work required in 2 years? More like 12 ...

A runway on it's own can be built in about 2 years in a rush.
The entire planning process and building new terminals takes considerably longer.

ALTF4 wrote:

chunhimlai wrote:

To be honest, to compete to nearby EU and ME airport, HAL have to think about 4th runway once 3rd runway completed.

Instead, I prefer Heathrow Hub project with new north runway on the 3rd runway site and extended concourse.

Why does LHR need 24,000+ foot long runways? Holy cow.

I think that is the Heathrow Hub proposal ... the Northern Runway will be extended into TWO runways,,, never been done before.. on the face of it they have done their homework
https://heathrowhub.com/ even endorsed by a former Concorde Captain.

Very much doubt that anyone has the appetite at the moment to push ahead with a third runway at LHR for the foreseeable future .. the amount of infrastructure that would need to be put into place, including diverting one of the busiest highways in Europe is massive.. and for not much return.

Although London does have quite a few airports the only ones that could be expanded are Gatwick and Stansted.... the outlier is Manston which could feasibly be developed although that is a long shot and has its own issues.. so bookmark this page and see you in 2033.

rutankrd wrote:

Gatwick handles far more domestic originating traffic today and is even more slot constrained

Slot constrained by how much at Gatwick? Right now, it's rare to get any slot at Heathrow from the open pool. This implies Heathrow is generally at 100% capacity in terms of allocated slots. What's the equivalent percentage for Gatwick?

vhtje wrote:

rutankrd wrote:

When some explains how this ( infinitely delayed) project benefits the rest of the UK ( domestic demand) rather than just adding to largely unnecessary transiting traffic flows for instance Bangalore to the Bay Area ( especially when the UULH frames increasingly operate non stop) effectively with genuinely costs including environmental costs , regional costs to roads , utilities , lost housing ,loss of half of Londons fresh water storage facilities ( All those fall on the public purse) in addition to the concrete strip then we can talk.

Gatwick handles far more domestic originating traffic today and is even more slot constrained . Indeed MAG group two airports are pretty close on that score as well.

Add in current governments ever changing border and VISA policies ( especially for our neighbours) what competitive edge Heathrow had on the North Atlantic is steadily being eroded.

An aside it’s quite evident that the days of liberal and unhindered travel is coming to an end , ESTA , ETIAS, the UKs own proposed permission to travel regulations all impact of freedom of movement to a greater or lesser extent .

The assumed right to travel is being subsumed into one of a permission to travel model.( differing debate worth having it own thread however maybe in none Av as it’s political)

Transferring over Heathrow is potentially in long term decline just imho.

European flows will decline , Asia to Europe will avoid the UK ( as they prefer the Schengen VISA entry points for ease of administration ) UULH will drain much of the valuable premium traffic South Asia- USA ( a work in progress)

We see Paris expanding its US offerings and even the trinity’s route development largely targeting mainland airports ( Except American ).

We have even seen airlines such as Air NewZealand move away from London ( indeed Europe entirely)

Whilst the low hanging fruit that fills the back two thirds of the long haul ( won’t be flying those UULH on price for the most part) are increasing those that route on longer haul via the desert and from points rather closer to their homes in the UK in particular.

So imho the project should have been completed thirty years ago however now it’s simply time expired as the industry, wider commerce, financial and indeed leisured travellers have way more alternatives today .

All excellent points, very well made. However, one point you forgot is how popular London is as a destination in its own right. It’s in the top 3 visited cities worldwide.

https://www.mastercard.com/news/insights/2019/global-destination-cities-index-2019/

I am sorry but no. He has completely missed the point by way out. European Airports are NOT expanding. They are actually shrinking if you conside rthe high level of constraints the local authorities are placing on flight travel on the continent. Schiphol and Charles de gaulle, for example, will be very soon free from any flights that are lower of 2 hours in extent with some small exceptions. The limits placed on Schiphol alone lately dwarf the ones at Heathrow. The only "new" Airport and in position to expand is Berlin Brandenburg and this is saying a lot.

As for the flurry of electronic pre-travel compliance, honestly they are not worse more than a brief harrumph even so less. ESTA, ETIAS and the future UK Electronic Travel compliance take about 10 minutes and areound US$ 10.00 - 15.00 to get and will last each at least TWO years. As a money making exercise, it is genius. As a hindrance to the average passenger, is minimal.

London itself is an attractive point in itself which, to an extent, Middle East is not. Connection-wise, London is well located to serve the whole European Continent without though being too far from other parts of the world.

So, nope, LHR is not the best and most important airport int he world but, yes, it has a reason and a purpose on its overall volume which is being picking up towards pre-COVID19 Levels and it depends very little from local (intra UK) flights compared to others like CDG and FRA.

By the way, the 3rd Runway HAS BEEN APPROVED. The fact it needs other planning permissions is just part of the process and these can (and will be) used a potential blocking points towards delaying the overall construction but the main plan is defined and approved at the last instance.

If it is going to be built though, it is another story given budgetting and appetite. But I feel they will aim to move on discretly with all the planning applications at this stage with no much hype in the media towards starting at least ground building before the next general elections because, by then, Labour will probably assume power and might introduce legislation blocking the scheme if nothing has been built. Mind you, with Starmer, they might actually just let go to avoid business backlash and lack of employment opportunities (airport staff in the UK is heavily Unionized and they will crave for those extra members) so it may allow it to happen.

But this is a topic for another (political) thread

Jomar777 wrote:

By the way, the 3rd Runway HAS BEEN APPROVED. The fact it needs other planning permissions is just part of the process and these can (and will be) used a potential blocking points towards delaying the overall construction but the main plan is defined and approved at the last instance.

I disagree entirely. The fact that it still requires various planning permissions clearly shows it cannot proceed until the entire process is completed. Only then can approval be given for commencement. However, if you wish to play with words, such as approval in principle, that is up to you.

vhtje wrote:

All excellent points, very well made. However, one point you forgot is how popular London is as a destination in its own right. It’s in the top 3 visited cities worldwide.

.

Indeed, and an excellent post by the member. Yes, London is certainly a top destination in its own right, but it definitely doesn't need a third runway to alter that.

A major hurdle to expansion at LHR is Ba/IAG. They own over half the slots, so will have to pay for most of the expansion, and will just get more competition and reduced yield in return. I believe they are happy as they are.

skipness1E wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

The opening up of Gatwick's second runway will be welcome though.

That's a rounding error in the grand scheme of London airport capacity!

You are right, but welcome never the less.

Imagine if we combined all the London airports into one, busiest in the world by a mile.

Arion640 wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

The opening up of Gatwick's second runway will be welcome though.

That's a rounding error in the grand scheme of London airport capacity!

You are right, but welcome never the less.

Imagine if we combined all the London airports into one, busiest in the world by a mile.

In 2019, if you add up the number of people passing through Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, City and Southend airports, you get to over 180 million passengers. That said, if there was just 1 London airport, you wouldn't see anywhere near this number of passengers. The monopoly power of a single airport would prevent the competition that exists between London airports - Ryanair would not be willing to pay what Heathrow charges. Furthermore, I don't think any airport could efficiently make use of the land needed to service 180 million passengers - taxi times would be even longer than the Polderbaan in Amsterdam which would again make flying to a single London airport more expensive

First time I did the polderbaan taxi I thought we were going by road.

Vicenza wrote:

Jomar777 wrote:

By the way, the 3rd Runway HAS BEEN APPROVED. The fact it needs other planning permissions is just part of the process and these can (and will be) used a potential blocking points towards delaying the overall construction but the main plan is defined and approved at the last instance.

I disagree entirely. The fact that it still requires various planning permissions clearly shows it cannot proceed until the entire process is completed. Only then can approval be given for commencement. However, if you wish to play with words, such as approval in principle, that is up to you.

No. You are the one playing with words. The project has been approved. If it wasn't, those licenses would not be needed anyway. To get approval, the level of likelihood for those licenses to be approved were already acessed so they are just part of the process to carry out the said project. They can be refused/withdrawn if granted and then disputed, etc, but the overall project does stands as a whole being those issues able just to be able to highlight shortcomings on one or another said license - not be a reason for the whole project to fail. Usually in these cases, if an issue is found, it is solved and license is granted anyway.

Read a bit more about projects and litigations, will you?

Thank god for the A380.

An absolute manna from heaven for BA.

I think if HKG was what it was ref demand they would have got a few more by now ?

I can’t really think of any more routes that it’s not already on ( most with other services too on smaller aircraft ) where it would trump frequency ?

I’m sure you could fill an A380 all day long to Orlando but would it be worth it ?

An all economy A380 to MCO, oh joy. Lol. Can you imagine !

I think it’s a shame American didn’t get any A380’s to compliment BA TATL.

Of the big 3 I think American and its Heathrow arrangement with BA could have made it work.

I know it’s metal neutral but still.

Imagine the photo ops. A BA A380 going west with an American A380 going east in the background.

All so dullsville these days.

Jomar777 wrote:

[

Read a bit more about projects and litigations, will you?

I can quite assure you that I don't need to be told anything about projects or litigation's from you....far from it in fact. When all 'approvals' and permissions have been granted and construction begins, come back and tell me its 'approved'.

Did anyone else read the title of this and started laughing before clicking?

Tristarsteve wrote:

A major hurdle to expansion at LHR is Ba/IAG. They own over half the slots, so will have to pay for most of the expansion, and will just get more competition and reduced yield in return. I believe they are happy as they are.

This is a very important point.
Previously WW in his prime argued this point a lot.
The benefit to BA versus the cost they’re expected to pay is very very minimal if any.

Tristarsteve wrote:

A major hurdle to expansion at LHR is Ba/IAG. They own over half the slots, so will have to pay for most of the expansion, and will just get more competition and reduced yield in return. I believe they are happy as they are.

This is true. BA doesn’t need more slots, so a third runway would likely result in them (indirectly) paying the largest share of the capital costs in return for being exposed to more competition.

Since the BMI acquisition BA have had more slots at LHR than they really need, which is why there was a large growth in Mediterranean leisure markets from LHR between 2013 and 2020, plus various other short haul routes they tried such as ORY, LUX etc. Prior to purchasing BD, BA almost exclusively served large European business markets ex-LHR which generated large volumes of both premium/corporate London O&D and Trans-Atlantic connections. Leisure and secondary markets were served from LGW. Since BD, BA have tried various new markets (both short haul and long haul) with various degrees of success and added a whole bunch of leisure markets to use the slots. If they needed to add more long haul flights then it’s easy to free up a slot by quietly moving one of these over to LGW. BA are also a master of 80% utilisation, which is why you will often see the same flight number with slightly different departure/arrival times by the day of the week.

The only way BA would need a large number of additional slots at LHR would be if they closed LGW, but that is not desirable either from their perspective as it would just allow EasyJet (and to a lesser extent Wizz) to become even more entrenched in the market. BA purchased the Monarch slots at LGW to prevent EasyJet from getting them, not because they wanted additional slots per se.

mustiturnright wrote:

Thank god for the A380.

An absolute manna from heaven for BA.

I think if HKG was what it was ref demand they would have got a few more by now ?

I can’t really think of any more routes that it’s not already on ( most with other services too on smaller aircraft ) where it would trump frequency ?

I’m sure you could fill an A380 all day long to Orlando but would it be worth it ?

An all economy A380 to MCO, oh joy. Lol. Can you imagine !

If it was ‘manna from heaven’ they would have ordered more than they did. I’m slightly surprised that BA ended up with such a small A380 fleet given they flew over 50 747-400s, but they have clearly indicated that the replacement for those is smaller aircraft (777-300, A350-1000, 787-10 etc.) Other than a relative handful of slot controlled airports, BA have enough Heathrow slots to prioritise frequency over capacity where the market demands more capacity.

Talking about Lufthansa and their temporary reintroduction of A380’s got me thinking if BA would currently operate the jet if the elusive 3rd runway had materialised ?

Funny thing is when it does finally get built at some point in the next 1000 years the A380 will probably have ceased production.

BA’s got those trunk routes LAX, SFO, DFW, BOS, MIA, JNB, CPT etc that they could fill all day long with a sign on the M25 that do not require frequency like JFK but I’ve got a feeling that even with slots galore they’d still fly the A380 due to its stellar financial performance when full.

What say ?

( I know LAX and BOS kind of need a bit of frequency but you know what I mean ref JFK )

1000 years is very optimistic of you. It will never be built...

wawaman wrote:

1000 years is very optimistic of you. It will never be built...

Yeah, really. Right there.

I personally think they should turn the Isle of Wight into an airport ! Lol.

If they can do it in Hong Kong…….

I think BA largely regrets taking the A380. Its dispatch reliability is awful and the main reason they kept them through covid was because it was more expensive to hand them back to the leasing companies than it was to keep and operate them.

They've tried it on several routes where it just doesn't work: YVR, BOS and even ORD. IAD doesn't really warrant it either. Even LAX is a better run operation without it. It's great for JNB, used to be good for HKG and SIN pre-covid but with Russian airspace closed and limited suitable enroute alternates I think we'll see it predominantly flying to the USA now.

That said, there are plans to refit the Club Suite to the entire upper deck in time, but that's a better alternative than handing them back. Given that too much was chopped during covid (aircraft/crew etc) they need the capacity...for now.

For USA routes, BA has several partners and revenue sharing, which means it really does not matter if it is BA operate the flight or not. In your examples, DFW can be downgraded to B777-300 as AA operates 4 daily B777s (1 B777-200 and 3 B777-300). Should BA downgrade the equipment, AA can use 4 B777-300 instead to maintain the capacity.

BOS and MIA can be channeled through other aircrafts (ideally A35K) or have additional frequencies when there are additional aircrafts available.

So for A380, the premium segment is 14F+97J=111; PY 55; Y 303
A350-1000, the premium segment is 56J; PY 56; Y 219
B777-300, the premium segment is 8F+76J=84; PY 40; Y 130
B777-9 rumoured premium segment is 8F+65J=73; PY 46; Y 206

Hence for premium heavy route, BA could use B777-300ER to replace A380 while sacrifice Y loads (thinking SFO and LAX); for Y heavy routes, A35K can be an ideal replacement with a mixture of B777-300/A35K and future B777-9.

But for routes like JNB and CPT, I don't see a way out unless BA use aircraft like A35K and B777-9 in combination and have more frequencies during peak season.

If everything fails, I have no doubt BA will rely on its partners to channel some traffic through hubs like JFK/ORD/CLT/MIA/DFW or HEL/DOH/MAD etc.

chonetsao wrote:

For USA routes, BA has several partners and revenue sharing, which means it really does not matter if it is BA operate the flight or not. In your examples, DFW can be downgraded to B777-300 as AA operates 4 daily B777s (1 B777-200 and 3 B777-300). Should BA downgrade the equipment, AA can use 4 B777-300 instead to maintain the capacity.

BOS and MIA can be channeled through other aircrafts (ideally A35K) or have additional frequencies when there are additional aircrafts available.

So for A380, the premium segment is 14F+97J=111; PY 55; Y 303
A350-1000, the premium segment is 56J; PY 56; Y 219
B777-300, the premium segment is 8F+76J=84; PY 40; Y 130
B777-9 rumoured premium segment is 8F+65J=73; PY 46; Y 206

Hence for premium heavy route, BA could use B777-300ER to replace A380 while sacrifice Y loads (thinking SFO and LAX); for Y heavy routes, A35K can be an ideal replacement with a mixture of B777-300/A35K and future B777-9.

But for routes like JNB and CPT, I don't see a way out unless BA use aircraft like A35K and B777-9 in combination and have more frequencies during peak season.

If everything fails, I have no doubt BA will rely on its partners to channel some traffic through hubs like JFK/ORD/CLT/MIA/DFW or HEL/DOH/MAD etc.

But does BA make my money by revenue sharing or using its own aircraft?.

mustiturnright wrote:

the A380 will probably have ceased production.

Huh? The A380 ceased production in 2021, so why are you writing this in future tense?

BA777FO wrote:

Even LAX is a better run operation without it.

#CitationNeeded

bennett123 wrote:

But does BA make my money by revenue sharing or using its own aircraft?.

Doesn't matter, as all USA-originating (and much other N.American-originating) traffic is split with American and Iberia, regardless of whether BA is using its own aircraft or not.

And then there's its TPAC j/vs with the likes of JAL and Qantas as well.

The A380 was built for airports with too little capacity for the PAX demand, i.e. Heathrow. It's easier and quicker to build a bigger aeroplane then it is build a runway and terminal. Sure, in a perfect utopian world, airports would have all the capacity that anyone would ever want, airlines could have a bigger fleet of smaller WB aircraft or whatever aircraft they dream, with more frequency, quicker dispatches and aircraft producers would adapt their product offering accordingly. But here's the crux. That doesn't exist. The world is messy and everyone adapts to the economy as best they can. BA need to make more and more out of the limited resources it has (slots). Easiest to do that with up-gauging on bigger aircraft. Airports need to make more money pushing PAX through their terminals. Aircraft producers adapt their offering to demand or forecast demand.

Your question focusses on BA. But what about the plethora of other airlines operating the aircraft to Heathrow? Would QR for example prefer to have double the frequencies on a smaller aircraft. Probably. But that's not the world we live in.

In a made up hypothetical world, the outcome would have a made up hypothetical result.

LAX772LR wrote:

mustiturnright wrote:

the A380 will probably have ceased production.

Huh? The A380 ceased production in 2021, so why are you writing this in future tense?

BA777FO wrote:

Even LAX is a better run operation without it.

#CitationNeeded

bennett123 wrote:

But does BA make my money by revenue sharing or using its own aircraft?.

Doesn't matter, as all USA-originating (and much other N.American-originating) traffic is split with American and Iberia, regardless of whether BA is using its own aircraft or not.

And then there's its TPAC j/vs with the likes of JAL and Qantas as well.

Is the revenue split the same if a flight is operated by AA or BA?.

BA777FO wrote:

I think BA largely regrets taking the A380. Its dispatch reliability is awful

Do you have some more information and some data to support this? I'd be very interested to learn more.

Anecdotally, the A380 is very popular with passengers, and the cabin crew I have spoken to enjoy working on it as well. Okay it's no 747 in terms of being loved, but the consensus from the BA frequent flyers I interact with on various social media platforms is that they prefer the A380 over 787, 777 and A350. By the same measure, the Club Suite, loved at the beginning, is rapidly falling from favour as it is suffering from quality woes and BA's choice of materials is very poor. Let's hope the ClubSuite gets a materials upgrade when it gets fitted on the A380.

Sorry I’ve forgotten how to partially copy a post. Been out for a few years.

Sorry, yes the A380 is out of production I meant by the time the 3rd runway is built the whole industry will have moved on hardware wise.

I don’t think I agree that BA regret ordering the A380. Their days of vanity operations are long gone.

With HKG out the picture they could easily have kept a few parked up……

BA777FO wrote:

I think BA largely regrets taking the A380. Its dispatch reliability is awful and the main reason they kept them through covid was because it was more expensive to hand them back to the leasing companies than it was to keep and operate them.

Thats completely untrue. The A380s selling point fitting the requirements for BA, is probably as perfect a discription as you can get, compared to almost any other airlines ever operated it. Probably only second to Emirates.

BA have unofficially said the A380 will not be leaving the fleet anytime soon. They are currently drawing up plans for a total cabin refit for the A380 fleet with Club Suites, new IFE and a new layout. They are working out which configuration will be best. One of the designs includes moving First and Club World to only occupy the upper deck. The main deck would then be World Traveller and World Traveller Plus. There's a lot of positives for this layout and i wouldn't be surprised if its the one adopted. It gives them a slight increase on World Traveller seats, whilst not losing too many premium seats with the new style Club Suit.

The A380 will most likely be with them for another 10 years. Admittedly, yes, there has been some despatch reliability issues of late, that can not be denied. I'm sure they are working their way through and trying to improve this.

vhtje wrote:

BA777FO wrote:

I think BA largely regrets taking the A380. Its dispatch reliability is awful

Do you have some more information and some data to support this? I'd be very interested to learn more.

Anecdotally, the A380 is very popular with passengers, and the cabin crew I have spoken to enjoy working on it as well. Okay it's no 747 in terms of being loved, but the consensus from the BA frequent flyers I interact with on various social media platforms is that they prefer the A380 over 787, 777 and A350. By the same measure, the Club Suite, loved at the beginning, is rapidly falling from favour as it is suffering from quality woes and BA's choice of materials is very poor. Let's hope the ClubSuite gets a materials upgrade when it gets fitted on the A380.

I flew in it ( new club ) a few weeks ago and one of my storage lids had been snapped off.

I was on staff travel so really not bothered but not a good look you’re right.

That was a 777 but the times I’ve flown on the A380 I’ve thought it a fabulous ride.

Very 747 esque on the main deck which is nice.

FluidFlow wrote:

I just wonder if it wouldn't be better to build a new airport east of Gravesend. Yeah its swampy area and there are a few little towns, but on the other side half of your noise pollution will be over the north sea and you can build 4 runways from the get go.

Ahh yes, the joke that was ‘Boris island’. That ridicules idea written on the back of a cigarette packet which hadn’t thought through anything technical (not unlike pretty much everything that comes out of Boris Johnson’s mouth), next to an endangered bird sanctuary, and was shown to be even more expensive, let alone in a geographical area that is not convenient to most of the travelling nation. Imagine travelling from the west of the country, or even most of the north and travelling past two or three airports to get to an island at the foot of the Thames in the North Sea.

edealinfo wrote:

rutankrd wrote:

Gatwick handles far more domestic originating traffic today and is even more slot constrained

Slot constrained by how much at Gatwick? Right now, it's rare to get any slot at Heathrow from the open pool. This implies Heathrow is generally at 100% capacity in terms of allocated slots. What's the equivalent percentage for Gatwick?

Correct, it's nonsense to say LGW is more slot constrained. It isn't. You can fly through the night, sure undesirable, but lots of slots available. PEAK time slots at LGW are difficult to come by, but other than that and compared to LHR? The entire portfolio of Monarch slots was snapped up by BA for £50Mln. A single pair can trade that high at LHR. If LGW was more slot constrained then we would see a lot more WB aircraft to the airport, and slots changing hands for A LOT more money.

TUGMASTER wrote:

Tristarsteve wrote:

A major hurdle to expansion at LHR is Ba/IAG. They own over half the slots, so will have to pay for most of the expansion, and will just get more competition and reduced yield in return. I believe they are happy as they are.

This is a very important point.
Previously WW in his prime argued this point a lot.
The benefit to BA versus the cost they’re expected to pay is very very minimal if any.

It’s not them who pay, it will be passed onto consumers in higher fees. The worry from a BA perspective given they were dominant there, was being undercut at alternative cheaper London airports. BA does have an advantage of the runway not being built. It gets to charge more and more as demand picks up and meaningful capacity can’t keep up. But it is a double-edged sword.

I read on this thread BA “doesn’t want more slots”. Rubbish. WW always stated they were a buyer of slots, and supportive of the third runway as long as the bill didn’t come to the airlines to pass on. IAG is never going to make real growth against its competitors if its biggest airline can never add on any more flights and meaningful capacity. Like any company it needs to grow, or will be overtaken by those who do. Just trying to charge more and more for the same seats will run out of leg room (pardon the pun). They need to offer more destinations and more frequencies in a sustainable manner for return, and yes, a lot of those flights going out of LGW, they would much prefer to base the operations out of LHR if they had the room. LGW has become the overflow for LHR, and a little bit of point to point where it’s easier to get to geographically for some (hence the daily JFK flight and YYZ in the past).

The approval is there, sure technically has to keep within some climate limits blah blah blah, which become increasingly less relevant as aeroplanes become cleaner and quieter. So, it is all about the money. Heathrow and its owners have been milking PAX and airlines like a cash cow for way too long. Look at the PATHETICALLY long time it is taking to build out T2. For me the obvious thing is for the CAA to decide what a fair price is for the charges (already the highest in the world), see how much the current owners are willing to invest into the project to get it done timely given that charge, and if they aren’t willing to invest, the government takes over the funding, taking the appropriate and fair equity stake in the group accordingly. The cost of this is a smidgen compared to say HS2 (which I’m not against) and will create tens of thousands of jobs directly and indirectly, as well as be a big boost to the economy.

I used to seek out a380 on the LHR/ORD route and now try to avoid it. Never on time. Either broken down at LHR or can't get timely push off at ORD. AA 787 much better performance.

Is the dispatch reliability a BA/RR issue? I haven't heard of Emirates or other A380 operators complaining..

schernov wrote:

I used to seek out a380 on the LHR/ORD route and now try to avoid it. Never on time. Either broken down at LHR or can't get timely push off at ORD. AA 787 much better performance.

It’s a pull factor though for an infrequent American flyer ?

If I were American and flying from LA or Chicago etc to London I know I’d go for BA and the A380.

Not because BA is any better but it would be a different experience and on an aircraft like the A380.

I’m only talking VFR’s and vacationers.

Vicenza wrote:

Jomar777 wrote:

[

Read a bit more about projects and litigations, will you?

I can quite assure you that I don't need to be told anything about projects or litigation's from you....far from it in fact. When all 'approvals' and permissions have been granted and construction begins, come back and tell me its 'approved'.

You indeed actually need but since this is moving far from the thread, and towards avoiding it blocked by pettiness, let's leave it at it.

But it is approved as such and it is the end of the matter even if something else prevents it going ahead.

LAX772LR wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

But does BA make my money by revenue sharing or using its own aircraft?.

Doesn't matter, as all USA-originating (and much other N.American-originating) traffic is split with American and Iberia, regardless of whether BA is using its own aircraft or not.

And then there's its TPAC j/vs with the likes of JAL and Qantas as well.

All of the costs and revenue for the oneworld transatlantic joint venture is split between British Airways, American Airlines, Iberia, Finnair and Aer Lingus. IAG specifically note here - https://www.iairgroup.com/en/the-group/our-alliances-and-joint-businesses that Aer Lingus joined in 2020.

What transpacific joint venture? #CitationNeeded

Do you mean the JV between BA and JAL? That's between Europe and Japan, not transpacific. Also, there's no agreement with Qantas, unless you're referring to the Qantas/American Airlines joint venture, which is unrelated to a thread on BA.

Aesma wrote:

If there is a will, there is a way. A law was passed recently in France to accelerate the building of new nuclear reactors, reducing the number of appeals, commissions, environmental studies, etc. (environmental studies are a moot point as the reactors will be built at existing sites).

There is no will in the UK for this third runway, hence it won't happen.

Expanding nuclear energy production will help France decarbonise, and thus is compatible with all the environmental commitments most countries have made, so a very different proposition to building a runway so that more fossil fuelled flights can take off...

An economy return to LAX on the BA website is £1000 today give or take.

On the A380 today First and Club is very nearly full. 112 seats. As is World Traveller Plus. Economy not so.

Be interesting to know the percentages in the summer but if economy is £1000 now, in the summer there’s a hell of a lot of space for vacationers and upgrades at god only knows what fare if business class drops for the summer.

That’s not the only flight today either.

ClassicLover wrote:

Do you mean the JV between BA and JAL? That's between Europe and Japan, not transpacific. Also, there's no agreement with Qantas, unless you're referring to the Qantas/American Airlines joint venture, which is unrelated to a thread on BA.

D'oh! Was thinking about it from AA's perspective, forgot it was a BA thread, lol.

eurotrader85 wrote:

The A380 was built for airports with too little capacity for the PAX demand, i.e. Heathrow. It's easier and quicker to build a bigger aeroplane then it is build a runway and terminal. Sure, in a perfect utopian world, airports would have all the capacity that anyone would ever want, airlines could have a bigger fleet of smaller WB aircraft or whatever aircraft they dream, with more frequency, quicker dispatches and aircraft producers would adapt their product offering accordingly. But here's the crux. That doesn't exist. The world is messy and everyone adapts to the economy as best they can. BA need to make more and more out of the limited resources it has (slots). Easiest to do that with up-gauging on bigger aircraft. Airports need to make more money pushing PAX through their terminals. Aircraft producers adapt their offering to demand or forecast demand.

Your question focusses on BA. But what about the plethora of other airlines operating the aircraft to Heathrow? Would QR for example prefer to have double the frequencies on a smaller aircraft. Probably. But that's not the world we live in.

In a made up hypothetical world, the outcome would have a made up hypothetical result.

Do, or did airlines in Japan not use 747s for short haul routes due to this issue. I remember this was the reason Boeing created a modified 747 for short hauls (less fuel capacity?)

stewartg wrote:

eurotrader85 wrote:

The A380 was built for airports with too little capacity for the PAX demand, i.e. Heathrow. It's easier and quicker to build a bigger aeroplane then it is build a runway and terminal. Sure, in a perfect utopian world, airports would have all the capacity that anyone would ever want, airlines could have a bigger fleet of smaller WB aircraft or whatever aircraft they dream, with more frequency, quicker dispatches and aircraft producers would adapt their product offering accordingly. But here's the crux. That doesn't exist. The world is messy and everyone adapts to the economy as best they can. BA need to make more and more out of the limited resources it has (slots). Easiest to do that with up-gauging on bigger aircraft. Airports need to make more money pushing PAX through their terminals. Aircraft producers adapt their offering to demand or forecast demand.

Your question focusses on BA. But what about the plethora of other airlines operating the aircraft to Heathrow? Would QR for example prefer to have double the frequencies on a smaller aircraft. Probably. But that's not the world we live in.

In a made up hypothetical world, the outcome would have a made up hypothetical result.

Do, or did airlines in Japan not use 747s for short haul routes due to this issue. I remember this was the reason Boeing created a modified 747 for short hauls (less fuel capacity?)

Yea they did. They had 747s coming out of their ears at one point. BA operated a 747 to MAN then onwards to ISB not sure if that sector was for sale though.

mustiturnright wrote:

Talking about Lufthansa and their temporary reintroduction of A380’s got me thinking if BA would currently operate the jet if the elusive 3rd runway had materialised ?

Funny thing is when it does finally get built at some point in the next 1000 years the A380 will probably have ceased production.

BA’s got those trunk routes LAX, SFO, DFW, BOS, MIA, JNB, CPT etc that they could fill all day long with a sign on the M25 that do not require frequency like JFK but I’ve got a feeling that even with slots galore they’d still fly the A380 due to its stellar financial performance when full.

What say ?

( I know LAX and BOS kind of need a bit of frequency but you know what I mean ref JFK )

So you think the A380 is still in production?

rbavfan wrote:

mustiturnright wrote:

Talking about Lufthansa and their temporary reintroduction of A380’s got me thinking if BA would currently operate the jet if the elusive 3rd runway had materialised ?

Funny thing is when it does finally get built at some point in the next 1000 years the A380 will probably have ceased production.

BA’s got those trunk routes LAX, SFO, DFW, BOS, MIA, JNB, CPT etc that they could fill all day long with a sign on the M25 that do not require frequency like JFK but I’ve got a feeling that even with slots galore they’d still fly the A380 due to its stellar financial performance when full.

What say ?

( I know LAX and BOS kind of need a bit of frequency but you know what I mean ref JFK )

So you think the A380 is still in production?

Yes, they knocked out 10 yesterday.

If you read the whole thread you’ll see I wrote that what I meant was that by the time the 3rd runway is built the industry hardware will have moved on completely due to it probably never happening.

One would have thought it quite obvious I was referring to parts and maintenance ? Maybe not….

mustiturnright wrote:

I think it’s a shame American didn’t get any A380’s to compliment BA TATL.

Of the big 3 I think American and its Heathrow arrangement with BA could have made it work.

I know it’s metal neutral but still.

Imagine the photo ops. A BA A380 going west with an American A380 going east in the background.

How many routes could American realistically use the A380 on, especially when they have hubs scattered all over the United States.

mustiturnright wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

mustiturnright wrote:

Talking about Lufthansa and their temporary reintroduction of A380’s got me thinking if BA would currently operate the jet if the elusive 3rd runway had materialised ?

Funny thing is when it does finally get built at some point in the next 1000 years the A380 will probably have ceased production.

BA’s got those trunk routes LAX, SFO, DFW, BOS, MIA, JNB, CPT etc that they could fill all day long with a sign on the M25 that do not require frequency like JFK but I’ve got a feeling that even with slots galore they’d still fly the A380 due to its stellar financial performance when full.

What say ?

( I know LAX and BOS kind of need a bit of frequency but you know what I mean ref JFK )

So you think the A380 is still in production?

Yes, they knocked out 10 yesterday.

If you read the whole thread you’ll see I wrote that what I meant was that by the time the 3rd runway is built the industry hardware will have moved on completely due to it probably never happening.

One would have thought it quite obvious I was referring to parts and maintenance ? Maybe not….

I'm befuddled as to how parts and maintenance has anything to do with runway capacity.

mustiturnright wrote:

An economy return to LAX on the BA website is £1000 today give or take.

On the A380 today First and Club is very nearly full. 112 seats. As is World Traveller Plus. Economy not so.

Be interesting to know the percentages in the summer but if economy is £1000 now, in the summer there’s a hell of a lot of space for vacationers and upgrades at god only knows what fare if business class drops for the summer.

That’s not the only flight today either.

What has these posts of yours concerning the A380 and the prices of a flight have anything whatsoever to do with the thread....which is the status of LHR's third runway?

AirKevin wrote:

mustiturnright wrote:

I think it’s a shame American didn’t get any A380’s to compliment BA TATL.

Of the big 3 I think American and its Heathrow arrangement with BA could have made it work.

I know it’s metal neutral but still.

Imagine the photo ops. A BA A380 going west with an American A380 going east in the background.

How many routes could American realistically use the A380 on, especially when they have hubs scattered all over the United States.

mustiturnright wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

They could probably use them out of Chicago and Dallas to London and maybe some East Asian cities.

Not saying that they should.