yenne09
Topic Author
Posts: 682
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 12:02 am

Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:42 pm

After doing some researches I realized that many countries have more than one long-haul airport. Even, when I was a teenager in the 70's British Airways had flight between Montreal to Manchester. So I do not understand why people want to put their eggs in the same basket.
Here are a few examples:
-Brazil-North 6 long-haul airports (Belem, Brasilia, Fortaleza, Manaus, Natal, Recife)
-Canada-East 6 long-haul airports (Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Quebec, Toronto, St-John's)
-Germany 5 long-haul airports (Berlin, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich)
-France 4 long-haul airports (Lyon, Marseille, Nice,Paris)
-Colombia 3 long-haul airports (Bogota, Cali, Medellin
-Italy 3 long-haul airports (Milan, Rome, Venice)
-South Africa 3 long-haul airports (Capetown, Durban, Johannesburg
-Kenya 2 long-haul airports (Mombassa, Nairobi)
-Switzlerland 2 long-haul airports (Geneva and Zurich)
-Thailand 2 long-haul airports (Bangkok, Phuket)
 
needmolegroom
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:55 pm

Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:47 pm

Because London Airways, who claim to be the UK's major airline, says it should be so.
needmolegroom
 
bristolflyer
Posts: 2103
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 1:35 am

Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:47 pm

Because it is so close to London with great transport options into the city. Travel to Gatwick would require, for a lot of people, driving on the M25 motorway which is slow and tedious.
Fortune favours the brave
 
gkirk
Posts: 23383
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:50 pm

Scheduled long haul flights are available from the following UK airports:
Glasgow
Edinburgh
Newcastle
Manchester
Birmingham
London Gatwick
London Heathrow
Belfast Int

Of course, BA only fly long haul from LGW and LHR, but generally that is what hub carriers in Europe do: AF (CDG/ORY), KL (AMS), LH (FRA/MUC/DUS), SK (CPH/ARN/OSL) etc etc
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
 
Upperdeck
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:03 am

Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Wed Jan 28, 2015 2:07 pm

Quoting bristolflyer (Reply 2):
Travel to Gatwick would require, for a lot of people, driving on the M25 motorway which is slow and tedious.

Hmm....there was me thinking Heathrow was next door to the M25. I think your point is correct, but for the wrong reasons. Most Londoners can access Heathrow without going on the M25 but it's often the fastest route if not the shortest. As someone who lived in East London for 2.5 years, I would always consider Heathrow before Gatwick as it's so much quicker to access.

Anyway I think the OP is confused between the UK long haul flights and British Airways long haul. A very quick check on google would have been a good idea prior to posting.

Quoting gkirk (Reply 3):
Scheduled long haul flights are available from the following UK airports:

  
 
SelseyBill
Posts: 710
Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:38 pm

Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Wed Jan 28, 2015 2:09 pm

Quoting yenne09 (Thread starter):
I do not understand why people want to put their eggs in the same basket.

Its not just aviation; the United Kingdom is completely dominated by London; (or become 'Londoncentric' as its sometimes called); in so many ways; perhaps more than any comparable country on earth.

Just look at metropolitan area populations compared with; say Germany.....

UK
1. Greater London = 9.7M
2. Manchester = 2.5M
3. Birmingham = 2.4M
4. Leeds = 1.8M
5. Glasgow = 1.2M
6. Liverpool = 0.86M
7. Southampton = 0.85M

Germany
1. Ruhr area metro = 4.5M
2. Berlin = 4.3M
3. Hamburg = 2.6M
4. Munich = 2.1M
5. Frankfurt = 1.9M
6. Cologne = 1.7M
7. Stuttgart = 1.6M

London dominates; (its is often argued to the detriment of other regions of the UK); Germany however; has its population, economy, wealth and influence spread much more evenly over its land mass.
 
peterinlisbon
Posts: 1564
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:37 am

Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Wed Jan 28, 2015 2:21 pm

It is only a 3 hour drive from London Heathrow to Manchester, which most people would be willing to do in order to get a direct flight. A large part of its catchment area is to the south, which makes it even closer to Heathrow. Heathrow is very well connected by rail and by road to the rest of the country and it is the closest and most convenient airport for London. There is a bus station with direct buses from there to towns all over the country. Most of the countries you mention are much larger (Brazil, Canada, South Africa) or have very poor roads or mountainous areas (Colombia, Switzerland, Thailand, Kenya). I think if you look at journey times from the places you mention to the country´s main gateway, you´d be looking at driving times of 5 hours to several days. Bogota-Cali is something like 9 hours of misery up and down through the mountains. Bangkok-Phuket takes 12 hours. Fortaleza-Sao Paulo takes 36 hours by bus.

The other issue is perhaps inbound tourism. Almost all of the tourists visiting the UK want to see London, so that´s where they want to fly into and not somewhere else. So Manchester wouldn´t have much inbound tourist traffic from places like New York, LA and Tokyo for example. It´s all been tried and tested and if there was money in it then BA would be on it for sure. For Emirates, Manchester is a good market because they can consolidate everything into one route to Dubai and distibute everyone via their hub. Other airlines can fly there from their hubs.

If you got the same fare on BA and Emirates from, for example, Manchester-Bangkok via Dubai and London Heathrow-Bangkok direct, the total journey time would probably be about the same.
 
a380787
Posts: 4573
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:38 pm

Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Wed Jan 28, 2015 2:23 pm

UK and France are both very single-city centered (LON and PAR). Others like Germany have a few large metros to spread the population and wealth (FRA MUC DUS TXL, and to a certain degree, HAM).

And time and again, business travelers have proven that they're unwilling to fly to LGW (let alone STN or LTN).

Japan is the truly curious case - they have 3 really large metros (each more populous than entire nations), and yet, air traffic seem very TYO-centered. Osaka, for whatever reason, keeps lurking in Tokyo's shadow and fails to break out the way MUC has over FRA.
 
jfk777
Posts: 7092
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Wed Jan 28, 2015 2:56 pm

Heathrow's unique character is one close proximity to the city center and physical constraint but also one of history long before the airplane was invented and that is Empire. No other country can claim such a diverse colonial past as the UK giving many other countries that historical tie. Spain is only in Latin America and France mostly in Africa and a few Caribean islands. The UK's colonies include a country with a billion people, India, to three of the world's biggest land wise Canada, Australia and the "colonies" the USA. Two Asian very prosperous city-states with world class airlines, Hong Kong and Singapore home to of course Cathay and Singapore Airline which fly to LHR about 8 times daily combined. LHR has demand from all corners of the world because of all the English speakers with historical ties and places where English, not colonies, is widely spoken who can afford to go travel: the Japanese. IF Heathrow had four runways and was the size of the DFW airport they would probably still have a slot issue.
 
SCQ83
Posts: 5418
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:32 pm

Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Wed Jan 28, 2015 3:53 pm

You must be joking. UK outside London is indeed very well served by international carriers offering long-haul services.

By comparison, France outside Paris is a wasteland for long-haul. Some holiday/ethnic flights, EK at LYS (not even daily!) and NCE year-round and seasonal service with DL to JFK from NCE. And that is all.

In MAN alone (no matter it is only 3 hours drive to LHR) you have AA/US, UA, DL/VS, EK (multiple daily), QR, EY, SV, CX, SQ... and the holiday flights (Thomas Cook, etc.) and some "ethnic" carriers (Iraqi, PIA...). Tons of carriers, destinations and many in daily or multiple daily services.

It is really comparing apples to oranges.
 
a380787
Posts: 4573
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:38 pm

Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Wed Jan 28, 2015 3:59 pm

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 15):

In MAN alone (no matter it is only 3 hours drive to LHR) you have AA/US, UA, DL/VS, EK (multiple daily), QR, EY, SV, CX, SQ... and the holiday flights (Thomas Cook, etc.) and some "ethnic" carriers (Iraqi, PIA...). Tons of carriers, destinations and many in daily or multiple daily services.

If you look at the pax and destination mix, I'd venture to say EK QR EY can qualify as "ethnic carriers" too ..... carrying MAN - South Asia traffic.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 15):
By comparison, France outside Paris is a wasteland for long-haul.

This is so true ... and also a sad state of affairs that the French government fails to promote their secondary and tertiary cities, even though France is the #1 most visited country.

Maybe the excellent TGV access directly from CDG is killing hopes of other cities getting meaningful service.
 
yenne09
Topic Author
Posts: 682
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 12:02 am

Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Wed Jan 28, 2015 4:19 pm

I know very well that there ar more than Heathrow as long-haul airports in UK especially with the casea of Emirates serving
many airports. My reflexion was about the idea promoted by some that the future of UK aviation is in hand of Heathrow airport. I know France UK and Germany because I went to Europe more than 20 times. My surprise is why there are still
so many difficulties to develop other airports For Example, Paris has Orly and CGD as long-haul airports. Tokyo has 2
like Milan, Rome, New York and so on. Every country has is own identity but it is difficult to understand why so many poeple stick to Heathrow.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4891
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Wed Jan 28, 2015 4:25 pm

Quoting Upperdeck (Reply 4):
Hmm....there was me thinking Heathrow was next door to the M25. I think your point is correct, but for the wrong reasons. Most Londoners can access Heathrow without going on the M25 but it's often the fastest route if not the shortest. As someone who lived in East London for 2.5 years, I would always consider Heathrow before Gatwick as it's so much quicker to access.

The difference between Gatwick and Heathrow in that aspect is to get to Gatwick you either have to travel through London, or travel quite a distance either way around the M25. Heathrow on the other hand is next to the M4, within 5 miles of both the M3 and M40, and is closer to the M1 than Gatwick is to the M3.

So Heathrow can serve a lot more of the country more easily than Gatwick can - if you are going to Gatwick, there are few places you can come from where you don't have to pass Heathrow first  
 
A346Dude
Posts: 1161
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:23 am

Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Wed Jan 28, 2015 4:30 pm

Quoting yenne09 (Thread starter):
Canada-East 6 long-haul airports (Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Quebec, Toronto, St-John's)

YYT-YYZ: 2,129km. There are approximately 0 people who would consider driving from Newfoundland to Toronto to catch a flight.
You know the gear is up and locked when it takes full throttle to taxi to the terminal.
 
factsonly
Posts: 2712
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:08 pm

Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Wed Jan 28, 2015 4:36 pm

Quoting yenne09 (Thread starter):
Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?  

A different way of looking at it.

Take the total number of passengers in the UK-Netherlands market as an example, 2014 data:

- TOTAL UK-NL Market = 8.187.379 pax/year in 2014.

of which:

- LHR to/from the Netherlands = 1.486.898 pax/year

- Other UK airports to/from the Netherlands = 6.700.481 pax/year.


Conclusion, the UK is NOT addicted to LHR !

DATA: CAA 2014
 
tp1040
Posts: 363
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:30 pm

Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Wed Jan 28, 2015 4:43 pm

London, New York, Hong Kong, Beijing, Istanbul are the crossroads of the world. With Dubai recently joining the group.

Each city has a dominant international hub with a lot of money and goods flowing through there.
 
frostyj
Posts: 1786
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:04 am

Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Wed Jan 28, 2015 4:50 pm

Quoting a380787 (Reply 10):

Yes the long haul routes to America in Europe are quite poor, particularly in eastern Europe.
[url=http://m.maploco.com/details/5f34zxvq][img]http://www.maploco.com/vmap/s/8395334.png[/img][/url]
 
karadion
Posts: 1020
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:06 pm

Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Wed Jan 28, 2015 5:02 pm

Can I join? France doesn't have the kind of teeth that the English are so proud of!

Quoting a380787 (Reply 18):

We're proud to have you as our hat!
 
Beatyair
Posts: 856
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:09 pm

Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Wed Jan 28, 2015 5:09 pm

London's Heathrow is to Gatwick as Montreal's Dorval is to Mirabel. People want access and not have an airport way out of town. Still can't figure out what is taking the new runway so long?
 
starrymarkb
Posts: 285
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:19 pm

Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Wed Jan 28, 2015 5:42 pm

I was talking about this on the forum for a festival I'm attending, a few people wondered why I was going BA from Heathrow rather then a cheaper EZY from LGW or LTN - Simple answer is that from here I have a direct coach to Heathrow every 2 hours taking ~3.5 hours. To fly from LGW or LTN I'd have to connect at Heathrow for another 1hr coach ride to LGW or LTN which cancels out any saving!

If Heathrow was abandoned for Boris Island it's unlikely we'd keep a direct airport link as there aren't the numbers to justify a dedicated coach (many services for destinations west of London call at Heathrow because it's just 5 mins off the M4 and they'd pass it anyway)

BRS is an option, however it's very much focused on Sun destinations with KLM or BEL providing Long Haul via AMS or BRU
 
marky
Posts: 178
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 6:16 am

Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Wed Jan 28, 2015 8:04 pm

Quoting Karadion (Reply 17):
London's Heathrow is to Gatwick as Montreal's Dorval is to Mirabel.

As others have pointed out this whole thread is flawed since the UK has plenty of long haul traffic outside of LHR, but this comparison really has no merit.

Mirabel is closed as a commercial airport. Gatwick handled 38 million passengers last year, over 2.5 times that handled by Montreal's 'Heathrow equivalent' Dorval.

For millions of people in the South East of the UK, LGW is more convenient than LHR.
 
starrymarkb
Posts: 285
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:19 pm

Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Wed Jan 28, 2015 8:06 pm

Quoting marky (Reply 20):
For millions of people in the South East of the UK, LGW is more convenient than LHR.

And for a great deal more Heathrow is more convenient then Gatwick (ie Anyone North or West of London)
 
BSRadar
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:35 pm

Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Wed Jan 28, 2015 8:15 pm

The "Heathrow Addiction" as postulated by the OP is a far from wilful addiction. The "Londoncentric" nature of the UK is a hotchpotch of history, downright favouritism, lazy government, pathetic planning, regional neglect etc etc - so nothing new there - we've lived with it for aeons. Now, there's a potted history of the UK for you.

Now to take up with SelseyBill - your population figures, whilst not necessarily incorrect, they do tend to suggest that the MAN catchment is smaller than it really is. Greater Manchester is a shade under 2.7m whilst Merseyside is a shade under 1.4m. With Lancashire having 1.45m then the immediate catchment population for Manchester is more or less 5.5m - or well over 50% of the Greater London population. If we add in the other "Northernish" populations who would and do prefer to travel MAN, then we start to challenge the notion that a second long-haul hub cannot be supported. However, it is not all about the population numbers, there is the wealth generation, the industrial clout, travel infrastructure etc - and with that I refer you back to my potted history lesson. (No offence intended, Bill!).

Others have pointed out that long-haul has had a presence at MAN for many years, and currently it is enjoying some modest increases. Down the years MAN has tried bl**dy hard for these successes, but these have come through the foreign carriers, whereas BA held MAN out to dry, whilst it concentrated on its "core business" i.e. LHR. Going back to the OP question, well the use of LHR would seem rather more of a forced addiction for many, wouldn't it?

Access to LHR from the regions is difficult and frequently a nightmare. Living between MAN and LPL, I find that I have to allow at least 4 hours driving time down the capricious M6/M42/M40/M25 which is loathsome, and then the cost of parking is hideous. The train is efficient and now quite pleasant into Central London, but that is where the nightmare begins on a seemingly endlessly jolting tube, or by maddening taxi. Frankly, I am lucky in that the MAN-LHR shuttle is convenient for me, but I still prefer about long-hauling out of MAN, if I can - at all. Many, many others would do the same.

Access to LGW (the so-called second long-haul airport, well, yes) is of course even worse than LHR from the regions. The appalling decision by BA to drop MAN-LGW last year is just symptomatic of how BA treats the regions and helps add fuel to the apparent LHR addiction, doesn't it?

Now: in April I go to POS. Do I go LGW-POS or ex MAN - US (variously) - POS? Sensible replies only please!
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3251
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Wed Jan 28, 2015 8:23 pm

Quoting yenne09 (Thread starter):
-Canada-East 6 long-haul airports (Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Quebec, Toronto, St-John's)

Quebec??? I think you mean Calgary???

Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax and St John's are the 6 cities AC serves from LHR, though Edmonton may come back again. BA also serves Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto and Montreal from LHR.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
marky
Posts: 178
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 6:16 am

Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Wed Jan 28, 2015 8:27 pm

Quoting starrymarkb (Reply 21):
And for a great deal more Heathrow is more convenient then Gatwick (ie Anyone North or West of London)

I don't disagree - the point I was making is that in Montreal Mirabel was more convenient for almost nobody, which is not the case for Gatwick
 
OO-VEG
Posts: 1250
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2000 5:31 pm

Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Wed Jan 28, 2015 8:45 pm

London has 2 things going for that... from the good side.. it's a big city on an island, so flights are the preferred way to reach London. Therefore the options are large. Secondly.. because the rest of the UK isn't on mainland either.. you are stuck on that island without much other options to go to.
 
Bongodog1964
Posts: 3542
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:29 am

Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Wed Jan 28, 2015 9:29 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 12):
So Heathrow can serve a lot more of the country more easily than Gatwick can - if you are going to Gatwick, there are few places you can come from where you don't have to pass Heathrow first  

On the contrary there are lots of places, most of Greater London, all of the South East Coast and East Anglia.

Quoting BSRadar (Reply 22):
The appalling decision by BA to drop MAN-LGW last year

Obviously not appalling to BA, as they couldn't justify continuing it.
 
SelseyBill
Posts: 710
Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:38 pm

Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:36 pm

Quoting BSRadar (Reply 22):
No offence intended, Bill!.



........none taken.

I lifted those 'metro-area' population figures from a well known and respected German source, just to illustrate how population centres are spread more evenly across a country like Germany. I wasn't commenting on how that situation arose, or whether it was necessarily a good thing or not. It just is.

The growth of London; (& NY); into the '#1 Alpha++ city in the world' is an amazing piece of history, and its growth factors are open to much debate.

The ineptitude of our politicians to let LHR grow with the economy is an eternal curse; but has probably helped the growth of UK regionals and sped the now considerable presence of the likes of the ME3 airlines. In terms of air travel, the need to use LHR from the UK regions is much less now than it was say 10 years ago, and developments such as the likely IAG-BA-EI JV, there will be even less reason in the future.
 
kl911
Posts: 3981
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 1:10 am

Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:47 pm

Don't forget that there are airlines like KLM, with between 16 and 18 UK destinations linking via AMS to the world.
 
kdhurst380
Posts: 347
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:52 am

Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Wed Jan 28, 2015 11:22 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 12):
The difference between Gatwick and Heathrow in that aspect is to get to Gatwick you either have to travel through London, or travel quite a distance either way around the M25. Heathrow on the other hand is next to the M4, within 5 miles of both the M3 and M40, and is closer to the M1 than Gatwick is to the M3.

So Heathrow can serve a lot more of the country more easily than Gatwick can - if you are going to Gatwick, there are few places you can come from where you don't have to pass Heathrow first  

This is, of course, entirely based on access by road, which many people do not do.

If we're talking trains/public transport, Gatwick is far more accessible. Many routes to the airport don't involve going anywhere near London. Heathrow does not have a railway station connected directly to the national rail network, it's either an hour to central London via tube, or 15 minutes via the hideously expensive, Heathrow-owned Heathrow Express train, to Paddington.

To answer the question though, Heathrow is where all the alliances are, it's in a very affluent catchment and offers routes and frequencies that no other airport in the UK currently does. It's an airport that I, like many take no pleasure in using, getting between terminals takes an age, the design of the airport is poor, and unless you're coming by road, it's a bit of a pain to get to; but it's where the most choice is, and can even be cheaper to fly from than the regions.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Wed Jan 28, 2015 11:45 pm

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 5):
Quoting yenne09 (Thread starter):
I do not understand why people want to put their eggs in the same basket.

Its not just aviation; the United Kingdom is completely dominated by London; (or become 'Londoncentric' as its sometimes called); in so many ways; perhaps more than any comparable country on earth.

France is very Paris-centric, probably even more so than London. Very few longhaul flights from secondary airports in France.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 23):
Quoting yenne09 (Thread starter):
-Canada-East 6 long-haul airports (Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Quebec, Toronto, St-John's)

Quebec??? I think you mean Calgary???

I think the reference was to airports in Eastern Canada with longhaul service. YQB has seasonal Air Transat service to a few points in France.
 
skipness1E
Posts: 4564
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Thu Jan 29, 2015 12:06 am

It's more about *critical mass*. London Airport (as was) was the home of Empire air routes, BOAC and BEA crossed the globe and helped make London a joined up global city. Pan Am, TWA and all the major world airlines had their London presence at London Airport, making it the key gateway to the city and the UK. Now Gatwick becomes a new airport for London but based carriers struggle against state carriers at LHR, BCAL, Laker et al fail and Virgin is a close run thing before LHR is opened up in 1991.
WIth LHR having such a head start, it was always going to be tricky for any airport to compete against such a huge hub due to accidents of history. Gatwick is in a great place but connections are always better out of LHR so £ for £ the same LON-abc long haul will make a higher margin out Heathrow.

No airline *WANTS* to move from LHR to LGW, it's a marketing behaviour, not an "addiction". Fairness and equity and spreading business around the country just adds costs and fragmentation. BA did used to do regional long haul out of PIK, BFS (briefly), BHX and MAN, when it became necessary to run BA as a business, they stopped.

Quoting BSRadar (Reply 22):

Access to LGW (the so-called second long-haul airport, well, yes) is of course even worse than LHR from the regions. The appalling decision by BA to drop MAN-LGW last year is just symptomatic of how BA treats the regions and helps add fuel to the apparent LHR addiction, doesn't it?

What? What? The assets used on LGW-MAN are better deployed making more money elsewhere. If it was so appaling, how come not one single other carrier with lower costs has picked it up. Remember both BE and EZY tried and failed to make NCL-LGW work after BA dropped it, why's MAN so different? BA had no feed out of Gatters after lunchtime, it's been eyars since LGW was our "second long haul airport." The term is meaningless, LGW is a P2P traffic driver for London and the South East with some Scottish connectivity, it's not a hub for anyone. (not easyJet either before anyone starts, they don't do connections   )

Quoting BSRadar (Reply 22):

Now: in April I go to POS. Do I go LGW-POS or ex MAN - US (variously) - POS? Sensible replies only please!

er..... MAN unless the price is prohibitive surely.
 
9252fly
Posts: 952
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:19 am

RE: Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Thu Jan 29, 2015 3:18 am

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 8):
IF Heathrow had four runways and was the size of the DFW airport they would probably still have a slot issue.

...I can't imagine what you're describing.
 
hohd
Posts: 786
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 1:03 am

RE: Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Thu Jan 29, 2015 3:35 am

3 hours from MAN to LHR, only on a day with light traffic (may be Sunday). Everytime I went on a car it took atleast 4+ hours. Plus the uncertainity about how along it could take. Once it took, 7 hours.

In short not many drive, which is reason why MAN has decent long haul service, quite adequate for the catchment area, unlike Birmingham.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17675
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Thu Jan 29, 2015 3:47 am

Quoting kdhurst380 (Reply 29):
15 minutes via the hideously expensive, Heathrow-owned Heathrow Express train, to Paddington.

Hideously expensive?   

The journey on the Heathrow Express can cost as little as £16. From Heathrow to central London in 15 minutes is worth a lot more than that to a lot of people. Hell, my 14 mile taxi ride from home (outside M25) to Heathrow costs nearly twice that (even more if I'm leaving home at 5:30am to catch the red-eye to Aberdeen).

You should not underestimate the value many people put on their own time.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
yenne09
Topic Author
Posts: 682
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 12:02 am

RE: Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:28 am

I have family in the Birmingham area but it's impossible to go via Heathrow because I ha to take train or coach from Heathrow. From Montreal I have to reach Birmingham via Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Munich, Paris or Zurich.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17675
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:31 am

Quoting yenne09 (Reply 35):
it's impossible to go via Heathrow because I ha to take train or coach from Heathrow

So, not actually "impossible"?   
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
MillwallSean
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:07 pm

RE: Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Thu Jan 29, 2015 5:17 am

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 27):
The ineptitude of our politicians to let LHR grow with the economy is an eternal curse; but has probably helped the growth of UK regionals and sped the now considerable presence of the likes of the ME3 airlines. In terms of air travel, the need to use LHR from the UK regions is much less now than it was say 10 years ago, and developments such as the likely IAG-BA-EI JV, there will be even less reason in the future.

helped the growth of UK regionals?
We are a country with one regional and its bleeding money...

Our main low cost carriers, local and foreign have all chosen London airports as their main bases. London is where there is money and of course where BA, the government should focus their efforts. ther is no point in ploughing down money where people dont live.
Whats good for London is good for the UK as the money slowly trickles down into the countryside.

LHR has done quite well from scarcity as it is. LGW does extremely well from its scarcity too. London is an aplha city, is second in the world in tourism (Paris is handsdown world leader).

I think we need to accept that so far the government has been good. Secondary markets such as the north and midlands is served adequately by foreign carriers and our home carrier needs one hub and thats LHR. Would an extra runway at LGW and LHR be even better of course but the need isnt as great as some here seem to think.
Data already shows that the visitor numbers, the business conducted is as string as its ever been.

London is also very efficient. One runway airports with more movements than many fourrunway airports. Seeing hubs in the US where there are umpteen frequencies between cities using small regional jets may be someone idea of efficient airtransport but its not mine. LHR and LGW have both managed to find the sweetspot in size of airplanes. We see large widebodies en masse in LHR. Brilliant for the environment and a good compromise between environment, Nimbys and connectivity.
LGW slighly different whit majority A320 plus the old colonies etc but its not a bad airport. The Southeast which it caters for is populous, rich and after London the UK:s second growth engine. LGW is also an airport that about half of Londons 9 million people reaches faster than LHR.

And I disagree with the OP. The UK has two international gateways. LHR and MAN. MAN sees a plethora of foreign carriers and serves Northern England.
The centre thats underserved in the UK is the midlands. Heaps of people but Birmingham the natural hub just doesnt cut it when it comes to the airport. if you ask me one of the solutions to LHR issues is to turn Birmingham into a proper international hub so we dont need to have half of England looking to London for their flights.The midlands is large enough, has a huge catchment area, has an economy thats hmm not on par with SE England but as good as Northern Englands is. Its better positioned to serve some of the West countries and Wales than London.
Midlands should sort its hub and the pressure on London would be relieved. Adding an extra runway at LGW is fine and dandy too.
No One Likes Us - We Dont Care.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18305
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Thu Jan 29, 2015 7:02 am

LHR has scale. For BA, only LHR has the connections to enable marginal routes and smooth over seasonal fluctuations. Even then, the connections at LHR aren't always timed well (due to a lack of slots). Cest la vie.

Quoting kl911 (Reply 28):
Don't forget that there are airlines like KLM, with between 16 and 18 UK destinations linking via AMS to the world.

   Non-hubs are becoming feeders to hubs unless they have high O&D traffic to specific destinations.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 34):
You should not underestimate the value many people put on their own time

What amazes me is how some people put no value on their (or others) time.


Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
David_itl
Posts: 6373
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

RE: Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Thu Jan 29, 2015 7:11 am

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 37):
ther is no point in ploughing down money where people dont live.

Let's see how this works. The government (of all persuasions) recognise the imbalance in the country but you reckon the best way to alleviate this is by spending more money in the South East will will allow more companies to expand there which leads to more people heading into the area so reducing the need to spend money in the regions. How much does North East England get for transport infrastructure... as much as £5 per person?
 
User avatar
RJ321
Posts: 305
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2014 5:57 am

RE: Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Thu Jan 29, 2015 8:19 am

Quoting gkirk (Reply 3):

Most of the long haul routes operated from these airports are to Dubai served by EK.
 
gkirk
Posts: 23383
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Thu Jan 29, 2015 8:27 am

Quoting RJ321 (Reply 40):
Most of the long haul routes operated from these airports are to Dubai served by EK.

GLA has EK, TS, UA, US/AA
EDI has QR, EY (soon), UA, AA, ACr
NCL has EK, UA (soon)
MAN has loads
BHX has TS, AA (soon), UA, PK, AI, EK
BFS has UA
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
 
SKAirbus
Posts: 1538
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:18 pm

RE: Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Thu Jan 29, 2015 8:39 am

There is a common misconception about LGW that it is harder to get to, which is bollocks.

When you look at rail transport Gatwick has far superior connections than Heathrow... The station is a major railway hub with services running 24 hours a day direct to major London stations (Victoria, London Bridge, Blackfriars, St Pancras, Clapham Junction). There are also direct trains from as far north as Bedford other longer train services only require a change at Kings Cross St Pancras.

I think Gatwick could have become London's major hub if it wasn't prohibited from building another runway. Maybe that will change soon. Heathrow's biggest weakness is that it is so close to London, with far more people living under the flight path. Also the Tube is painfully slow and very uncomfortable and the Heathrow Express is very unreliable (lots of delays due to the mainline out of Paddington regularly suffering problems) and extremely expensive.

I live in Inner London and Gatwick will always be the best airport in terms of getting there by public transport but I tend to choose Heathrow because I have an allergy to LCCs and legacy carriers are becoming increasingly rare at LGW.
Base: BRU
 
Upperdeck
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:03 am

RE: Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Thu Jan 29, 2015 9:27 am

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 42):
There is a common misconception about LGW that it is harder to get to, which is bollocks.
Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 42):
I live in Inner London and Gatwick will always be the best airport in terms of getting there by public transport

Hmm....tell you what....Let's meet in Trafalgar Square and see who gets to which airport first. The Gatwick Express journey is twice as long as the Heathrow Express. I agree that Gatwick has more ways to be reached by public transport, but it is certainly not the quickest if you're in London. Heathrow is much easier to reach by car, however.

To sum up, it's nice we have a choice!
 
SKAirbus
Posts: 1538
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:18 pm

RE: Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Thu Jan 29, 2015 10:58 am

Quoting Upperdeck (Reply 43):
Hmm....tell you what....Let's meet in Trafalgar Square and see who gets to which airport first. The Gatwick Express journey is twice as long as the Heathrow Express. I agree that Gatwick has more ways to be reached by public transport, but it is certainly not the quickest if you're in London. Heathrow is much easier to reach by car, however.

I agree but you have to get to Paddington, pay the extortionate price to get to Heathrow and then hope the trains aren't buggered which is common place on that line.

Easier to get to doesn't necessarily denote time... it often includes price (is it affordable?), and options. Heathrow is easiest for people who live in West London or close to Paddington. Gatwick can be reached quite easily by train from most of South London.

Anyway, yes. I like the choice, which is why I am annoyed legacy carriers are so desperate to get out of LGW.
Base: BRU
 
JOYA380B747
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 11:31 pm

RE: Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Thu Jan 29, 2015 11:09 am

Quoting yenne09 (Thread starter):
Here are a few examples:
-Brazil-North 6 long-haul airports (Belem, Brasilia, Fortaleza, Manaus, Natal, Recife)
-Canada-East 6 long-haul airports (Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Quebec, Toronto, St-John's)
-Germany 5 long-haul airports (Berlin, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich)
-France 4 long-haul airports (Lyon, Marseille, Nice,Paris)
-Colombia 3 long-haul airports (Bogota, Cali, Medellin
-Italy 3 long-haul airports (Milan, Rome, Venice)
-South Africa 3 long-haul airports (Capetown, Durban, Johannesburg
-Kenya 2 long-haul airports (Mombassa, Nairobi)
-Switzlerland 2 long-haul airports (Geneva and Zurich)
-Thailand 2 long-haul airports (Bangkok, Phuket)


There are airports (so many that I can't even start pointing out) that you have included that have almost non existent long haul flights.... when you compare with Manchester, Edinburg, Glasgow. So what's your point of those airports in thread start?
India's biggest loss w.r.t global aviation (so far) - Being an Australasia-Europe stopover.
 
SCQ83
Posts: 5418
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:32 pm

RE: Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Thu Jan 29, 2015 11:22 am

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 44):
There is a common misconception about LGW that it is harder to get to, which is bollocks.

When you look at rail transport Gatwick has far superior connections than Heathrow... The station is a major railway hub with services running 24 hours a day direct to major London stations (Victoria, London Bridge, Blackfriars, St Pancras, Clapham Junction). There are also direct trains from as far north as Bedford other longer train services only require a change at Kings Cross St Pancras.
Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 44):
I agree but you have to get to Paddington, pay the extortionate price to get to Heathrow and then hope the trains aren't buggered which is common place on that line.

Easier to get to doesn't necessarily denote time... it often includes price (is it affordable?), and options. Heathrow is easiest for people who live in West London or close to Paddington. Gatwick can be reached quite easily by train from most of South London.

I completely agree with your point of view. Everything is reduced to journey time, but to me the experience/feeling is more important (unless the difference in time is enormous). Taking the Piccadilly from LHR is psychologically a pain (that after leaving Heathrow itself walking through those tunnels in the old terminals to get to the tube, which are not nice). Counting the +10 stops that you have to the center (depending on where you are heading to, but it is almost 15 to Piccadilly Circus) stopping all the time.

Then the tube and the trains are definitely not made to carry luggage (even if it is just hand-luggage), and the more the go into inner London, the more crowded it gets, and then you go underground most of the time which is not nice honestly.

Unless it is LCY, I would rather take the train to LGW or even STN. Dunno, but even if Liverpool Street - STN is 45 minutes, I can relax there: I might have a table, space, plugs to charge my phone, I am above ground, I don't have to move my luggage (or have an eye on it) because more passengers are boarding... it is a completely different experience than being 30-40 minutes in the Piccadilly line to get into the center. It might take 10-15 minutes more than to get to LHR but smoother experience.
 
BSRadar
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:35 pm

RE: Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Thu Jan 29, 2015 11:29 am

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 27):
I lifted those 'metro-area' population figures from a well known and respected German source, just to illustrate how population centres are spread more evenly across a country like Germany. I wasn't commenting on how that situation arose, or whether it was necessarily a good thing or not. It just is.

Yes Bill, your observation regarding the more even population distribution within Germany and is probably a de facto justification for the existence of a second hub - accepted and understood at the time. However your UK (well, English) figures suggested a much higher population bias to Greater London than is actually the case. The point I was making that the 2 Metropolitan Counties + non-Metropolitan Lancashire (and I could have added West Yorkshire as Leeds is only 30 miles away), then we have a second population cluster within the North of England which justifies a genuine second MAJOR UK hub.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 26):
Obviously not appalling to BA, as they couldn't justify continuing it.

&

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 31):
What? What? The assets used on LGW-MAN are better deployed making more money elsewhere. If it was so appaling, how come not one single other carrier with lower costs has picked it up. Remember both BE and EZY tried and failed to make NCL-LGW work after BA dropped it, why's MAN so different? BA had no feed out of Gatters after lunchtime, it's been eyars since LGW was our "second long haul airport." The term is meaningless, LGW is a P2P traffic driver for London and the South East with some Scottish connectivity, it's not a hub for anyone. (not easyJet either before anyone starts, they don't do connections

Yes I was expecting some flak on my comments re: BA dropping MAN-LGW. Thanks to the two of you for rising to the occasion. Closing the MAN-LGW was the final act of BA's dismal record in the regions, and BA cherrypicked what they wanted - the 5 regional feeds into LHR. For years and years the regional operations were mismanaged, rudderless, disparate activities under changing ownerships / franchises. It is no wonder that the whole thing failed. When BA senior management called for attention to "core business", they maybe should have done it wearing black caps as it was the death-knell for the regional operations. It has been contested by those former BA employees who worked in the regions, that but for ignorance, unwarranted interference and lack of straightforward support from Speedbird house, there could have been a thriving and complementary BA operation within the regions. As a part of that operation, the inherited Dan-Air route MAN-LGW should have been just fine utilising the established infrastructure at both ends. Maybe I should have written "terminating the MAN-LGW service was the final act in the appalling manner in which BA has treated the regions. Yes, routes must pay, and I believe that BA could have done so with a reasonable amount of effort, but what I've just written simply amounts to history. I am aware of the unease with which BA is viewed at Gatwick - possibly 50 shades of the same malaise?? I had fond hopes for J2. Finally Skipnes1E, had my tongue in cheek become so dislodged when I referred to LGW as the UK's second long-haul hub? Sorry if that was a raw nerve.
 
skipness1E
Posts: 4564
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

RE: Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Thu Jan 29, 2015 11:59 am

No that's all fair comment and well out at that. Agree 100% that legacy BA couldn't manage to find it's own backside with both hands and a torch at times, they were their own worst enemy. It's for the best BA have moved on from the regions which are better served than they ever were under the days of paying £300 for breakfast on an aeroplane.....

Commercially with that cost base BA can only succeed at LHR and with an outsourced LGW operation with second hand A320s from TAM and Wizz. I wlaway thought BA CityFlyer might have the cost base to go back to regional p2p but they'd get slaughtered against FR and EZY. FWIW I used to agree with your sentiment, I just one day thought "What's the point?" and let it all go as one realises commercially it can only end in one place.

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 42):

I think Gatwick could have become London's major hub if it wasn't prohibited from building another runway.

needs a based carrier, perhaps a "second force"? Oh God sorry my bad...... LGW is not exaclty stacked at off peak times like LHR is.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 38):
LHR has scale

Nailed it.
 
slinky09
Posts: 655
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 5:03 pm

RE: Why UK Is So Addicted To Heathrow?

Thu Jan 29, 2015 12:42 pm

Quoting BSRadar (Reply 47):
Yes, routes must pay, and I believe that BA could have done so with a reasonable amount of effort, but what I've just written simply amounts to history. I am aware of the unease with which BA is viewed at Gatwick - possibly 50 shades of the same malaise?? I had fond hopes for J2. Finally Skipnes1E, had my tongue in cheek become so dislodged when I referred to LGW as the UK's second long-haul hub? Sorry if that was a raw nerve.

Yes, routes must pay, and I'm sure Skipness will point out that BA couldn't make it pay, VS hasn't been able to make it pay (LHR not LGW), BMI couldn't make it pay, as well as BE and EZY being unable to make it pay. I see this blathering on about how BA dumped the regions all over the place. If BA could get the yields over other routes, it'd be there like a shot.

As others have said, the OP made some basic errors and as has been pointed out there at least eight UK airports I can think of with scheduled LH service (add VS to GLA for example). Let's also consider that the UK is a relatively small land mass (Germany is 1.5x larger, France 2.5x larger, Brazil / Canada etc. much larger still. So basic error and dissimilar comparisons.

Then you have to consider O&D business, I can't locate it but I recall somewhere that London has something like eight out of the top ten O&D routes by value or pax. A large part of this is driven by global finance and the fact that London is no. 1 in the world (I believe still edging out New York). Then you have connections, plus a dominant airline wanting efficiency of operations in one place, then catchment area and wealth in that catchment area ... it all adds up to make sense for one large hub airport with secondary airports serving their purposes. LGW is a fine place and is hardly small - it's about the 35th busiest airport in the world!

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