BBC news reports that LHR is cutting is fees for domestic pax by a third, or £10, and also a £5 reduction to European destinations.
Whilst any reduction is of course welcome, airlines are not obliged to pass on the savings.
But with LHR being virtually at capacity, there can't be any new domestic routes anyway so why reduces the fees now ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32163676

PR exercise for the runway commission - regional connectivity is seen as a core argument for it.

Slimy toads at HAL trying to soften people up.

I wonder what Virgin Atlantic think about this as they're just about to shut down Little Red!

Quoting TC957 (Thread starter): But with LHR being virtually at capacity, there can't be any new domestic routes anyway so why reduces the fees now ?

There is likely more than one reason for the charge reductions. However such changes are much more likely to happen when you get new competition, in this case between LHR and LGW. While LHR might be at capacity today that does not stop it loosing business to LGW. It could certainly comfortably handle less passengers tomorrow.

In the bad old days before BAA was forced to sell LGW we had a cosy monopoly.

Note that there is no reduction for long-haul passengers. This is probably because HAL does not regard LGW as much of a competitive threat in this market segment.

So that leaves one question. Why no comment along these lines on the BBC link? The answer is probably because they are simply quoting HAL who are not going to explain that the reductions are because they are or expect to loose business to LGW. They have put a more positive spin on their price reduction.

Quoting LHRFlyer (Reply 3): I wonder what Virgin Atlantic think about this as they're just about to shut down Little Red!

I was thinking that too. Who knows if lower LHR operating costs could have saved Little Red. But EDI & ABZ still has more than 5 months to run so time for deals to still be renegotiated. One to watch.

Quoting TC957 (Reply 5): But EDI & ABZ still has more than 5 months to run so time for deals to still be renegotiated. One to watch.

The EU regulations require these remedy slots to be offered to alternative airlines. This is confirmed by the link below. However the link in this link no longer works. I believe this is because we are past the closing date for such applications. I think that the result of any such applications is scheduled for release in the coming weeks. Clearly this is required if the successful applicant is to ensure it has the aircraft available to operate the services from the end of October. So I think VS is too late to apply for the slots to be reassigned back to themselves:

http://www.acl-uk.org/latestNews.aspx?id=184

This offer by Heathrow Airport is throwing a lemon to a starving tiger.

Sure, we need to concentrate London airport expansion on LHR, UK's existing single hub airport, to maximise UK domestic and local benefits. Surely we also need to:

A. Give overwhelming weight to passenger interests, feather weight to airline and Heathrow Airport Ltd interests.

B. Plan as the first priority to provide a top of the class passenger experience, to the envy and detriment of competing hubs, in part by a step change in resilience and efficiency, thus in punctuality. Accept that the monopoly of owner-operator Heathrow Airport Ltd, and the airlines are merely self-interested suppliers. Their organisation of LHR operations to gain a quart of activity out of a pint pot of assets is to the detriment of passengers and the four nations of the UK. Rightly praised as a wonderful operational achievement in conjuncture with NATS, it is also a strategic disaster for the 4 UK nations and their regions. Likewise, regulatory capture by these suppliers is against the interests of passengers.

C. Fix the main long standing strategic stupidity, which is the regular daily chaos which inevitably occurs when runways are scheduled at 98% of Summer and Winter theoretical capacity.

D. Make the LHR and the whole UK air transport system safer, by reducing the current intense pressure on NATS and air-side ground operations.

E. Make LHR more sustainable with near zero aircraft in holding stacks and near zero queuing to take off, all wasteful and unsustainable.

F. Set aside in perpetuity at least 100 new free loan LHR slots exclusively for additional smaller domestic destinations than those currently served, enabling new direct air services to the UK's four constituent nations and their distant regions. In 1990 there were 19 UK domestic destinations, now this is just 7. The 12 destinations lost to LHR damages our UK.

G. Plan for and quickly deliver a purpose built domestic air passenger and air freight mini-hub co-located and fully integrated within an expanding international passenger and freight hub at LHR.

H. Satisfy passenger wishes, particularly transit passenger wishes, which revolve around avoiding time wasting on the ground. Consider carefully the locations and alignments of runways, terminals and below ground structures for easy and reliable inter-connection of passengers, their baggage and not forgetting containerised and bulk air freight, and meeters and greeters. Heathrow Airport Ltd's proposals fail this test.

I. Step 1 is to build the 3rd LHR Runway. It should be the Extended Northern Runway, not the Heathrow Airport Ltd warmed over mess of pottage. Operate all three runways to 75% of their 2015 theoretical Summer or Winter slot allocations. Resilience against the normal, routine, expected and multiple day to day causes of the existing chaos would be profoundly improved by this '75% Rule'. As resilience is improved, so punctuality will improve, and so will the passenger experience at LHR.

J. The passenger experience would be lifted to the top of the international class to the envy and detriment of competing hubs. The new 100 free domestic slots and a LHR domestic hub would allow more UK passengers, more wallets, more business and more trade and thus will increase UK prosperity right across its four nations and their remote regions.

K. Follow up the Extended Northern (3rd) Runway (ENR) with the Extended Southern (4th) Runway (ESR) and keep my 75% Rule to maintain resilience, punctuality and the passenger experience. In effect, one of the 4 runways is a 'spare' which is ready willing and able to take care of the unexpected which happens at LHR every day.

[Edited 2015-04-03 06:30:39]

There was an article in the Times today regarding the reduction of the levy.

I was surprised to read that Heathrow served 18 domestic destinations in 1990 in comparison to the 7 today. Is anyone able to shed any light as to what these were? I can't seem to find anything.

15 of them

Inverness,
Aberdeen,
Edinburgh,
Glasgow,
Newcastle,
Tees Side,
Leeds/Bradford,
Manchester,
Isle of Man,
Belfast Aldergrove,
Belfast City,
Plymouth,
Newquay,
Jersey,
Exeter,

Add the Irish cities

Shannon,
Cork and Dublin

Others in the last thirty or so years have included

Carlisle,
Liverpool Speke,
Birmingham,
East Midlands,
Humberside.
Norwich.

[Edited 2015-04-03 10:06:03]

[Edited 2015-04-03 10:07:59]

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 9):

Thanks Rutankard. It is a pleasure to be corrected in such an informative manner. I was relying on the BBC, 'nuff said!

Well if the Little Red slot pairs come back to BA, that's nine additional slots BA has to use. This could support three new thrice daily routes.

HUY-NWI-LHR was axed by Air UK in 1990, so they would be included in the 18 domestic destinations referred too

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 9): Others in the last thirty or so years have included Carlisle, Liverpool Speke, Birmingham, East Midlands, Humberside. Norwich.

Guernsey used to have 3 or 4 a day operated by Viscounts certainly until the mid late 70s

Quoting sierra3tango (Reply 13): Guernsey used to have 3 or 4 a day operated by Viscounts certainly until the mid late 70s

Guernsey-LHR lasted well into the 90's and was Air UK's last LHR route. Didn't KLM sell the slots after buying Air UK?

[Edited 2015-04-03 11:20:07]

Air Écosse/Euroair operated Dundee-Carlisle-LHR....

I can't see BA or anyone else launching new domestic routes into LHR no matter how much I would like to see them.

What will happen if the vs slots revert to BA, who knows but the chances of seeing BA operating LHR to JER or EXT without R3.......


cs

With the withdrawal of VS LR there is going to be a major shortage of seats on LHR Scotland. BA flights are often full at peak hours, as has been shown by GLA being left with only one carrier. Perhaps why LCY has had to fill the breach. Figures there have gone up by 40% but is no use for LHR connections, albeit will take away the business daytrip and OD demand. With the loss of the Euro 767s there will be an issue also.

Surely BA can route point to point traffic ex Scotland into LCY or LGW as arriving into LHR doesn't give any advantages for getting into central London when compared to LGW and certainly city wins.

Perhaps they should be looking to add capacity during peak times on Scotland-LGW ?


cs

Quoting cornishsimon (Reply 18):

Thats what they are doing and the LHR flights are still jampacked and carrying huge fare premiums at peak times.,Its LHR capacity that will be lacking. A lot still prefer LHR for their city business.

Does anyone know if any airline has submitted a bid to take over the Remedy slots?

Quoting Egerton (Reply 7):

Egerton


C. Fix the main long standing strategic stupidity, which is the regular daily chaos which inevitably occurs when runways are scheduled at 98% of Summer and Winter theoretical capacity.

The real chaos is caused by only using 50% of the existing runway capacity on a daily basis, due to the archaic agreement with the local councils to alternate runways and utilise them, simultaneously, only for landings or for take offs, but not for both.

[Edited 2015-04-04 04:48:08]

We need to remember that LHR is THE MOST EXPENSIVE airport for airlines to operate to/from in Europe.

Due to congestion pricing, airport charges at LHR are significantly above any of the competing hub airports in Europe. As a result UK domestic air routes to/from LHR are drying up, as they are among the most expensive air routes to operate and require a very high yield to be profitable. Only very few domestic routes can sustain such high operating costs.

In the summer of 2007, London Heathrow was 50% more expensive than AMS Schiphol, although in the summer of 2003 Heathrow was only 12% more expensive. LHR costs have risen sharply in recent years.

Today LHR has a significant cost disadvantage, particularly in relation to Amsterdam Schiphol. AMS stands out as the best connected hub airport to/from the UK regions, this is partly due to AMS' lower airport charges and thus lower route operating costs.

At present AMS is connected to 26 UK airports with a total of 141 daily departures. This compares to LHR with 7 domestic destinations and 60 daily departures

The LHR decision to lower domestic route charges is purely aimed at regaining some fo the marketshare lost to continental hub airports. It is a token gesture that must be seen in light of debate about London's new runway and the forthcoming report of the Airport's Commission. It is designed to highlight the need for more airport capacity to win back lost UK traffic and lost marketshare.

http://www.takingbritainfurther.com/

[Edited 2015-04-04 04:43:57]

This article:

'London Heathrow unveils measures to boost domestic connectivity'

gives more detail about what HAL said when announcing their price reductions and can be read here:

http://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/ne...res-to-boost-domestic-connectivity

How serious they are . . . Time will tell.

However their biggest customer has certainly been applying the pressure:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/h...s-boss-BA-parent-Willie-Walsh.html

and then six months later

http://www.theguardian.com/business/...irways-chief-attacks-heathrow-boss

Quoting bluenose5 (Reply 21):

The real chaos is caused by only using 50% of the existing runway capacity on a daily basis, due to the archaic agreement with the local councils to alternate runways and utilise them, simultaneously, only for landings or for take offs, but not for both.

Thank you for your comment. Here is a quotation from Heathrow Airport Ltd on runway alternation:

"At its heart, runway alternation is straightforward: for part of the day we use one runway for landings and the other
for take-offs. Halfway through the day we switch over. If you were living or working under an incoming flight path
during the morning, you’re unlikely to be under one duringthe afternoon. And vice versa."

Quoting Egerton (Reply 24): Thank you for your comment. Here is a quotation from Heathrow Airport Ltd on runway alternation: "At its heart, runway alternation is straightforward: for part of the day we use one runway for landings and the other for take-offs. Halfway through the day we switch over. If you were living or working under an incoming flight path during the morning, you’re unlikely to be under one duringthe afternoon. And vice versa."

Bluenose5 is referring to mixing mode i.e. Landings and take off operations on BOTH runways near simultaneously.

With mixed mode the current parallel operation ATMs could be increased from around 40 movements per runway per hour to more than 50 movements per hour without an ounce of extra concrete.

But with some disgruntled residents and businesses when the 27s are used.

BTW the current 3 pm switch only applies to Runway 27 alignment operations for noise abatement purposes.

Currently no such switch occurs on the 09 alignments due to to limited taxiway layout at the western end of 09L, and as consequence of the old Cranbrook agreement.

Quoting bluenose5 (Reply 21):

C. Fix the main long standing strategic stupidity, which is the regular daily chaos which inevitably occurs when runways are scheduled at 98% of Summer and Winter theoretical capacity.

The real chaos is caused by only using 50% of the existing runway capacity on a daily basis, due to the archaic agreement with the local councils to alternate runways and utilise them, simultaneously, only for landings or for take offs, but not for both.

Quoting Egerton (Reply 24):
Thank you for your comment. Here is a quotation from Heathrow Airport Ltd on runway alternation:

"At its heart, runway alternation is straightforward: for part of the day we use one runway for landings and the other
for take-offs. Halfway through the day we switch over. If you were living or working under an incoming flight path
during the morning, you’re unlikely to be under one duringthe afternoon. And vice versa."

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 25):

Bluenose5 is referring to mixing mode i.e. Landings and take off operations on BOTH runways near simultaneously.

With mixed mode the current parallel operation ATMs could be increased from around 40 movements per runway per hour to more than 50 movements per hour without an ounce of extra concrete.

But with some disgruntled residents and businesses when the 27s are used.

BTW the current 3 pm switch only applies to Runway 27 alignment operations for noise abatement purposes.

Currently no such switch occurs on the 09 alignments due to to limited taxiway layout at the western end of 09L, and as consequence of the old Cranbrook agreement.

Yes, Bluenose made two points, first: "by only using 50% of the existing runway capacity" which seems wrong, and his second point which you have addressed and to which I now belatedly add extracts from Airport Commission Interim Report December 2013, pages 165 and 166:

"5.110
Mixed mode operations would allow both runways to be used for arrivals or departures at the same time. This potentially allows for a significant increase in the number of scheduled flights at the airport above the current cap of 480,000 (certainly up to 520,000 ATMs and potentially as high as 540,000) – or alternatively, the increased operational flexibility could be used to enhance the resilience of the airport’s operations. However, this comes at a cost to people living around the airport. Mixed mode operations mean a loss of respite; aircraft noise could be present throughout the day, every day. The measure therefore attracts strong local opposition.

5.111
The Commission is not recommending the introduction of mixed mode operations at Heathrow as a short-term measure. There are three key factors behind this decision:

● The noise impacts of mixed mode operation are severe, as it would mean an end to the respite periods currently granted to communities around the airport as a result of runway alternation.

● Removing the current planning limitation in place at Heathrow which caps its annual ATMs at 480,000 would require a planning inquiry. Even with a more streamlined planning process, the Commission believes that the planning inquiry could still take a considerable period of time and there is no guarantee of success. Even if the planning cap were not to be lifted and mixed mode operations were used only to enhance resilience, infrastructure and airspace changes would be required, with a consequent need for extensive consultation.

● The implementation of mixed mode operations would need to be driven by the airport’s owners, who have indicated they do not support this measure."


There is a lot more where that comes from, but in summary may I suggest that the biggest issue facing those of us who wish to expand LHR to a 4 runway airport using extensions of the two existing parallel runways is the issue of politics?

Politically speaking there is zero chance that the alternate runway system can be varied to allow routine mixed mode, and if it were to happen any gain in Air Traffic Movements would be minimal. Raising the issue of mixed mode just adds to the political headwind against an expanded LHR.

I prefer to major on the benefit the whole of the UK from extra free slots made available from a initial 3rd Runway along with much greater resilience, to enable the 4 nations of our country and their regions to benefit, which may add a tailwind to the national political case in favour.

Sorry to bang on about this.

[Edited 2015-04-04 08:01:27]

[Edited 2015-04-04 08:02:18]

[Edited 2015-04-04 08:08:00]

[Edited 2015-04-04 08:17:18]

[Edited 2015-04-04 08:20:26]

Quoting AIR MALTA (Reply 20): Does anyone know if any airline has submitted a bid to take over the Remedy slots?

No, but if these slots do come back to BA - what are they going to do with them?

They'll have to be slot sitted

Transfer in some flights from LGW?
Open new LH services? But with what aircraft, only possible by delaying retirements
Open new European SH services yes but again doesn't look like they've got a whole heap of SH planes sitting about

So maybe a couple of new short SH (with least aircraft utilisation) domestic routes (like LBA) might do the trick
They could always be quietly dropped later

Just surmising that BA could then make public the story something along the lines 'just think how many additional
domestic services we could run if LHR had a 3rd runway'. Good PR & backs HAL

Quoting sierra3tango (Reply 27): Open new LH services? But with what aircraft, only possible by delaying retirements Open new European SH services yes but again doesn't look like they've got a whole heap of SH planes sitting about

They have a few options A320s and E90s amd if not they can easily get a few Vueling A320s during the quite winter months.

I could see BA opening a one or 2 domestic routes just to make the point (JER and may be INV), increase existing ones (ABZ and EDI) and start one or 2 new European routes... The bid time window for the remedy slots is now closed. Can we expect an announcement on the bidders anytime soon?

Quoting cornishsimon (Reply 18): Surely BA can route point to point traffic ex Scotland into LCY or LGW as arriving into LHR doesn't give any advantages for getting into central London when compared to LGW and certainly city wins

I think you are forgetting the O&D traffic from W London and particularly the M4 (M40/M3) corridor heading Northbound in the morning, there's a lot of that and those pax want to go from LHR (LCY is no use to them at all).

Quoting AIR MALTA (Reply 28): They have a few options A320s and E90s amd if not they can easily get a few Vueling A320s during the quite winter months.

They could also delay the planned retirement of their last few 734s that is currently scheduled to happen during the next three months as the leased-in LGW based 320s are delivered. However if these aircraft are nearing the need for a major maintenance procedure this could be a too-expensive option unless we are looking at a significant life extension.

Quoting cornishsimon (Reply 16): I can't see BA or anyone else launching new domestic routes into LHR no matter how much I would like to see them.

The discounts need to be more to really encorage it. It is mostly PR. However the government really should be ringfencing an allocation of slots to domestic services to balance out the money grabbing LHR policy of triple daily EK A380 flights at any wim.

There is commercial demand IMO from both passenger and other airlines for at least:

LHR-IOM (potentially BE, BA, Citywing)
LHR-JER (BA, SI, BE)
LHR-GCI (GR, BE)
LHR-INV (BE, BA)

All have considerable existing volume to the LON area, some fairly chunky in yields, frequency demanding and a mix of both biz and leisure traffic.

Quoting LX138 (Reply 31): balance out the money grabbing LHR policy of triple daily EK A380 flights at any wim. .... LHR-IOM (potentially BE, BA, Citywing)

Much as I would REALLY like to see Citywing Let 410s at LHR - it would be great!! - It is difficult to see the logic of allocating scarce airport capacity to a Let 410 rather than an A380.

Quoting GCT64 (Reply 32): Much as I would REALLY like to see Citywing Let 410s at LHR - it would be great!! - It is difficult to see the logic of allocating scarce airport capacity to a Let 410 rather than an A380.

Which is why the government and/or slot allocator need to intervene as said.

I would also agree that a Let 410 is going to be rarer at LHR than a DC3 doing Tatl. But one would assume that if Citywing came in, it would be with different equipment!