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.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
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?

Yes I do

It's about selling the highest priced fares to people who insist in direct
flights,

and the cheapest ones to people who book early

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.

That's fine, but it's no reason to insist you need a hub so that you can
fill a plane that you have artificially made less full than it might have
been

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.

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

"Robin" wrote:
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?

Spud/Boltar/Neil is a contract programmer who probably doesn't care about
such things.

"tim......" wrote in message
...

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
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?

Yes I do

It's about selling the highest priced fares to people who insist in
direct flights,

and the cheapest ones to people who book early

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.

That's fine, but it's no reason to insist you need a hub so that you can
fill a plane that you have artificially made less full than it might have
been




You're both wrong.

On 2013-12-17, Recliner wrote:
Spud/Boltar/Neil is a contract programmer who probably doesn't care about
such things.

And again?

What did some contract programmer ever do to you that you want to use
it as a derogatory term?

Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry