In message , at 09:04:03 on Mon,
15 Mar 2010, Paul Terry remarked:

The figures are from a HACAN report of 2006. I think you're right in
suspecting that they include codeshares - no doubt to bolster their
case

They are so wrong that all they do is invalidate the argument of
anyone relying upon them.

I wouldn't go that far:

I would. The only figure I'd previously researched (last time the issue
of E* replacing LHR-BRU flights came up) was overstated by *three*
times.

Therefore I have lost all confidence in the remaining figures (until
someone confirms them in the manner I did for BRU).

numerous other authorities give much the same list of destinations as
the most popular from Heathrow,

I'm not disputing that, but the volume of flights.

even though the precise order depends on the counting system used (just
departures, or departures and arrivals, and whether by number of
flights or by passenger numbers).

"Number of aircraft" would be a good start.

The point is that, of the most popular destinations, many are domestic,
hence the need for HS2 to serve Heathrow.

It's not as simple as that, you have to know where people are going next
- is it another plane, or into Central London. If the former, will the
train adequately replace a flight (guaranteed through booking and
baggae, "CIV-like" delay protection).

Of the rest (and excluding Dublin and New York that obviously can't be
served by rail), a direct or easy connection to Eurostar would be
useful for Paris and Brussels, plus possibly Amsterdam and Frankfurt.

Again, if people are connecting from long-haul onto those flights - see
my comments above.

But airline traffic to other European cities that could instead be
potentially reached by rail from Heathrow is relatively small scale.

Comprehensive passenger figures are published, perhaps it would help if
someone did a summary.
--
Roland Perry