wrote in message
news
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:54:58 -0600
Recliner wrote:
"tim......" wrote:
"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...

Apparently, Boris Island will be considered next year, but isn't on the
shortlist. How that sentence can mean anything is beyond me.

it's apparently just to stop Boris being too negative.

Glad to see the guy dis the idea that London *has* to have a hub.

I've never bought into that one bit

London does have a hub. It's just too small.

Too small for what? Too small to have even more transit passengers
spending
hardly any money in the UK in the few hours they spend here before they
fly
off again? Too bad. There is more than enough runway capacity in the
southeast,
we don't need any more. If BA gave up its regional slots at heathrow
there'd
be no issue there either. Theres zero good reason for flights to leeds and
newcastle from london in the first place when the train can do the job
perfectly adequately, and such flights if they must happen could easily be
done from City or Luton.

Intra UK transit pax are not the problem. It's the perceived need to steal
pax from other European carries at major European "hubs", that is

I was researching flights to SA the other day and it is 20% cheaper to fly
LHR-FRA-CPT with LH than it is to fly FRA-CPT

OTOH it is 20% cheaper to fly FRA-LHR-CPT with BA than it is to fly LHR-CPT.

So the reason that LHR needs to be a hub is because BA (apparently) can't
fill a plane from LHR to CPT without "bribing" pax from Germany to fly via
London.

Except that the only reason that here are seats on the plane is because LH
have bribed Brits to fly via FRA.

This isn't a reason to create a hub, the solution to this problem is to make
sure that your direct flights are competitively priced in the first place!

tim

On 2013\12\17 19:21, tim...... wrote:

wrote in message
news
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:54:58 -0600
Recliner wrote:
"tim......" wrote:
"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...

Apparently, Boris Island will be considered next year, but isn't on
the
shortlist. How that sentence can mean anything is beyond me.

it's apparently just to stop Boris being too negative.

Glad to see the guy dis the idea that London *has* to have a hub.

I've never bought into that one bit

London does have a hub. It's just too small.

Too small for what? Too small to have even more transit passengers
spending
hardly any money in the UK in the few hours they spend here before
they fly
off again? Too bad. There is more than enough runway capacity in the
southeast,
we don't need any more. If BA gave up its regional slots at heathrow
there'd
be no issue there either. Theres zero good reason for flights to leeds
and
newcastle from london in the first place when the train can do the job
perfectly adequately, and such flights if they must happen could
easily be
done from City or Luton.

Intra UK transit pax are not the problem. It's the perceived need to
steal pax from other European carries at major European "hubs", that is

I was researching flights to SA the other day and it is 20% cheaper to
fly LHR-FRA-CPT with LH than it is to fly FRA-CPT

OTOH it is 20% cheaper to fly FRA-LHR-CPT with BA than it is to fly
LHR-CPT.

So the reason that LHR needs to be a hub is because BA (apparently)
can't fill a plane from LHR to CPT without "bribing" pax from Germany to
fly via London.

Except that the only reason that here are seats on the plane is because
LH have bribed Brits to fly via FRA.

This isn't a reason to create a hub, the solution to this problem is to
make sure that your direct flights are competitively priced in the first
place!

standing ovation

In message , at 20:21:52 on Tue, 17
Dec 2013, tim...... remarked:
Intra UK transit pax are not the problem. It's the perceived need to
steal pax from other European carries at major European "hubs", that is

I was researching flights to SA the other day and it is 20% cheaper to
fly LHR-FRA-CPT with LH than it is to fly FRA-CPT

OTOH it is 20% cheaper to fly FRA-LHR-CPT with BA than it is to fly LHR-CPT.

So the reason that LHR needs to be a hub is because BA (apparently)
can't fill a plane from LHR to CPT without "bribing" pax from Germany
to fly via London.

You really don't understand yield management, do you?

It's about selling the highest priced fares to people who insist in
direct flights, then filling the remaining seats with people on feeders
from nearby. The result maximises revenue, even if some people get
cheaper flights as a result of agreeing to be those indirect passengers.

--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 19:39:01 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 20:21:52 on Tue, 17
Dec 2013, tim...... remarked:
Intra UK transit pax are not the problem. It's the perceived need to
steal pax from other European carries at major European "hubs", that is

I was researching flights to SA the other day and it is 20% cheaper to
fly LHR-FRA-CPT with LH than it is to fly FRA-CPT

OTOH it is 20% cheaper to fly FRA-LHR-CPT with BA than it is to fly LHR-CPT.

So the reason that LHR needs to be a hub is because BA (apparently)
can't fill a plane from LHR to CPT without "bribing" pax from Germany
to fly via London.

You really don't understand yield management, do you?

It's about selling the highest priced fares to people who insist in
direct flights, then filling the remaining seats with people on feeders
from nearby. The result maximises revenue, even if some people get
cheaper flights as a result of agreeing to be those indirect passengers.


Regardless , the whole motive behind blighting somewhere in the southeast
with another runway seems to be so that airlines and BAA can make more profit.
It has zilch to do with the UK economy other than the small amount of extra
corporation tax it would deliver which would be more than ofset by the billions
it would cost to build the thing in the first place even with partial private
finance. Its a cynical campaign by private corporations for the government to
spend huge amounts of public money on some infrastructure that will benefit
almost no one economically except themselves and their shareholders.

--
Spud

wrote:
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 19:39:01 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 20:21:52 on Tue, 17
Dec 2013, tim...... remarked:
Intra UK transit pax are not the problem. It's the perceived need to
steal pax from other European carries at major European "hubs", that is

I was researching flights to SA the other day and it is 20% cheaper to
fly LHR-FRA-CPT with LH than it is to fly FRA-CPT

OTOH it is 20% cheaper to fly FRA-LHR-CPT with BA than it is to fly LHR-CPT.

So the reason that LHR needs to be a hub is because BA (apparently)
can't fill a plane from LHR to CPT without "bribing" pax from Germany
to fly via London.

You really don't understand yield management, do you?

It's about selling the highest priced fares to people who insist in
direct flights, then filling the remaining seats with people on feeders
from nearby. The result maximises revenue, even if some people get
cheaper flights as a result of agreeing to be those indirect passengers.


Regardless , the whole motive behind blighting somewhere in the southeast
with another runway seems to be so that airlines and BAA can make more profit.
It has zilch to do with the UK economy other than the small amount of extra
corporation tax it would deliver which would be more than ofset by the billions
it would cost to build the thing in the first place even with partial private
finance. Its a cynical campaign by private corporations for the government to
spend huge amounts of public money on some infrastructure that will benefit
almost no one economically except themselves and their shareholders.

Who do you think would pay for the expansion of Heathrow? Not the
government.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 19:39:01 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 20:21:52 on Tue, 17
Dec 2013, tim...... remarked:
Intra UK transit pax are not the problem. It's the perceived need to
steal pax from other European carries at major European "hubs", that is

I was researching flights to SA the other day and it is 20% cheaper to
fly LHR-FRA-CPT with LH than it is to fly FRA-CPT

OTOH it is 20% cheaper to fly FRA-LHR-CPT with BA than it is to fly
LHR-CPT.

So the reason that LHR needs to be a hub is because BA (apparently)
can't fill a plane from LHR to CPT without "bribing" pax from Germany
to fly via London.

You really don't understand yield management, do you?

It's about selling the highest priced fares to people who insist in
direct flights, then filling the remaining seats with people on feeders
from nearby. The result maximises revenue, even if some people get
cheaper flights as a result of agreeing to be those indirect passengers.


Regardless , the whole motive behind blighting somewhere in the southeast
with another runway seems to be so that airlines and BAA can make more
profit.
It has zilch to do with the UK economy other than the small amount of
extra
corporation tax it would deliver which would be more than ofset by the
billions
it would cost to build the thing in the first place even with partial
private
finance. Its a cynical campaign by private corporations for the government
to
spend huge amounts of public money on some infrastructure that will
benefit
almost no one economically except themselves and their shareholders.

Actually it won't be the government spending the money (but otherwise I
agree)

but instead it will be the government (or rather the governing party) who
takes the political flack from all the annoyed residents.

And that's the political puzzle that they have to solve. Which is why
Boris' island will never fly as there isn't the commercial support available
to fund it. Fortunately, both the LHR and LGW options would (more or less)
be self financing so they have a "free" choice there.

tim

"tim......" wrote:
wrote in message ...
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 19:39:01 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 20:21:52 on Tue, 17
Dec 2013, tim...... remarked:
Intra UK transit pax are not the problem. It's the perceived need to
steal pax from other European carries at major European "hubs", that is

I was researching flights to SA the other day and it is 20% cheaper to
fly LHR-FRA-CPT with LH than it is to fly FRA-CPT

OTOH it is 20% cheaper to fly FRA-LHR-CPT with BA than it is to fly LHR-CPT.

So the reason that LHR needs to be a hub is because BA (apparently)
can't fill a plane from LHR to CPT without "bribing" pax from Germany
to fly via London.

You really don't understand yield management, do you?

It's about selling the highest priced fares to people who insist in
direct flights, then filling the remaining seats with people on feeders
from nearby. The result maximises revenue, even if some people get
cheaper flights as a result of agreeing to be those indirect passengers.


Regardless , the whole motive behind blighting somewhere in the southeast
with another runway seems to be so that airlines and BAA can make more profit.
It has zilch to do with the UK economy other than the small amount of extra
corporation tax it would deliver which would be more than ofset by the billions
it would cost to build the thing in the first place even with partial private
finance. Its a cynical campaign by private corporations for the government to
spend huge amounts of public money on some infrastructure that will benefit
almost no one economically except themselves and their shareholders.

And their customers, employees and suppliers. And those customers will
include businesses that gain from direct flights to secondary cities in
places like China and South America.


Actually it won't be the government spending the money (but otherwise I agree)

but instead it will be the government (or rather the governing party) who
takes the political flack from all the annoyed residents.

And that's the political puzzle that they have to solve. Which is why
Boris' island will never fly as there isn't the commercial support
available to fund it. Fortunately, both the LHR and LGW options would
(more or less) be self financing so they have a "free" choice there.

Boris Island would also need a huge publicly funded transport
infrastructure to replace those the one already exists at Heathrow. Closing
Heathrow would also deeply **** off the huge business community in the
Thames Valley and west London who are there because of a Heathrow.

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"tim......" wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 19:39:01 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 20:21:52 on Tue, 17
Dec 2013, tim...... remarked:
Intra UK transit pax are not the problem. It's the perceived need to
steal pax from other European carries at major European "hubs", that
is

I was researching flights to SA the other day and it is 20% cheaper to
fly LHR-FRA-CPT with LH than it is to fly FRA-CPT

OTOH it is 20% cheaper to fly FRA-LHR-CPT with BA than it is to fly
LHR-CPT.

So the reason that LHR needs to be a hub is because BA (apparently)
can't fill a plane from LHR to CPT without "bribing" pax from Germany
to fly via London.

You really don't understand yield management, do you?

It's about selling the highest priced fares to people who insist in
direct flights, then filling the remaining seats with people on feeders
from nearby. The result maximises revenue, even if some people get
cheaper flights as a result of agreeing to be those indirect
passengers.


Regardless , the whole motive behind blighting somewhere in the
southeast
with another runway seems to be so that airlines and BAA can make more
profit.
It has zilch to do with the UK economy other than the small amount of
extra
corporation tax it would deliver which would be more than ofset by the
billions
it would cost to build the thing in the first place even with partial
private
finance. Its a cynical campaign by private corporations for the
government to
spend huge amounts of public money on some infrastructure that will
benefit
almost no one economically except themselves and their shareholders.

And their customers,

there some double counting here you have mentioned them again (below)

employees

So a new runway at LHR will cause them to give they employees a rise will
it?

and suppliers.

OK I accept this

And those customers will
include businesses that gain from direct flights to secondary cities in
places like China and South America.

There is no proof that:

a) this will happen
b) that it wont happen if the extra runway is somewhere else

I don't buy this need to fly to dozens of regional airports in China. Most
of the companies that contract with UK companies are going to be located in
the "enterprise" areas that are probably already well served by flights.
The (likely) reason that other EU airports have links to more Chinese
airports is because of the demand from the Chinese to come here as tourists,
but we discourage that with our strict visa rules so they chose to go to
other parts of Europe instead. (I'm not saying that's right, but if it
doesn't change I don't believe that more destinations in China would be
served from LHR, if it did have more capacity).

tim

On 2013\12\18 17:22, tim...... wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...

"tim......" wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 19:39:01 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 20:21:52 on Tue, 17
Dec 2013, tim...... remarked:
Intra UK transit pax are not the problem. It's the perceived need to
steal pax from other European carries at major European "hubs",
that is

I was researching flights to SA the other day and it is 20%
cheaper to
fly LHR-FRA-CPT with LH than it is to fly FRA-CPT

OTOH it is 20% cheaper to fly FRA-LHR-CPT with BA than it is to
fly LHR-CPT.

So the reason that LHR needs to be a hub is because BA (apparently)
can't fill a plane from LHR to CPT without "bribing" pax from Germany
to fly via London.

You really don't understand yield management, do you?

It's about selling the highest priced fares to people who insist in
direct flights, then filling the remaining seats with people on
feeders
from nearby. The result maximises revenue, even if some people get
cheaper flights as a result of agreeing to be those indirect
passengers.


Regardless , the whole motive behind blighting somewhere in the
southeast
with another runway seems to be so that airlines and BAA can make
more profit.
It has zilch to do with the UK economy other than the small amount
of extra
corporation tax it would deliver which would be more than ofset by
the billions
it would cost to build the thing in the first place even with
partial private
finance. Its a cynical campaign by private corporations for the
government to
spend huge amounts of public money on some infrastructure that will
benefit
almost no one economically except themselves and their shareholders.

And their customers,

there some double counting here you have mentioned them again (below)

employees

So a new runway at LHR will cause them to give they employees a rise
will it?

and suppliers.

OK I accept this

And those customers will
include businesses that gain from direct flights to secondary cities in
places like China and South America.

There is no proof that:

a) this will happen
b) that it wont happen if the extra runway is somewhere else

I don't buy this need to fly to dozens of regional airports in China.
Most of the companies that contract with UK companies are going to be
located in the "enterprise" areas that are probably already well served
by flights. The (likely) reason that other EU airports have links to
more Chinese airports is because of the demand from the Chinese to come
here as tourists, but we discourage that with our strict visa rules so
they chose to go to other parts of Europe instead. (I'm not saying
that's right, but if it doesn't change I don't believe that more
destinations in China would be served from LHR, if it did have more
capacity).

What you really need is to have a dozen aeroplanes take off from a dozen
Chinese airports simultaneously, then link up mid-air with walkway tubes
linking them all in a straight line so that passengers can walk between
the planes, and then separate and go to a dozen different regional
airports in Britain. The existence of turbulence would mean the tubes
would have to be long and flexible, unlike the short rigid tubes that
link shuttles to space stations.

Regardless , the whole motive behind blighting somewhere in the
southeast
with another runway seems to be so that airlines and BAA can make
more profit. It has zilch to do with the UK economy other than the
small amount of extra corporation tax it would deliver which would be
more than ofset by the billions it would cost to build the thing in
the first place even with partial private finance. Its a cynical
campaign by private corporations for the government to spend huge
amounts of public money on some infrastructure that will benefit
almost no one economically except themselves and their shareholders.

Do you think that multinationals don't take into account ease of travel
when deciding where to base overseas offices? Eg that a Chinese company
might prefer to base its European operation near an airport with direct
flights to all major Chinese cities?

Do you think that having the overseas offices of multinationals does no
good to the UK economy in terms of direct jobs, demand for support
services etc?

Do you think the French, Germans, Dutch etc are mad for building major
airports and that ur David is the only one in step?




--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid