|
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 15:27:41 +0100, Mizter T
wrote: On 03/09/2014 14:53, Recliner wrote: On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 13:40:12 +0100, Mizter T wrote: On 02/09/2014 07:57, Recliner wrote: To no-ones's surprise, Boris Island hasn't made the airport expansion short list. Indeed, it's only pressure from Boris that left it on the list for so long at all. So what remains are three options, two for Heathrow expansion, and one for Gatwick. The business vote strongly favours Heathrow, but Gatwick is easier politically. The decision is due after the election, and I wonder which will win? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29026484 Gatwick. Eventually. So why all the procrastination then? The reason they keep deferring the decision is that Heathrow is the only one that makes economic sense, but it's politically very difficult. The only safe time to choose it is right after an election. It's political dynamite! The parties policies on the airports question going into the general election could be interesting - that said, they might well just say 'we'll follow the recommendations of the Airports Commission', when said recommendations (when they arrive) aren't likely to offer such an easy get out of jail free card. Individual candidates might do their own thing anyway. My reckoning is that Heathrow expansion will ultimately just be too politically toxic a path to take (remember the widespread pre-2010 opposition). If a decision was made to expand Heathrow, I wouldn't necessarily consider that the end of the story. Ah well, assuming that the Scots don't vote for independence in a couple of weeks, that will probably be the big political debate next summer. In the meantime, I notice Gatwick have a lot of ads and posters up, pushing its case. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 15:16:16 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote: On 2014-09-03 13:06:09 +0000, Recliner said: You might think Gatwick is full, but it's not: Airports should not be operated to "full" - it gives them poor contingency, a big problem with LHR. LTN is rarely hit hard by disruption simply because it has the slack to catch up if it needs to. If LHR's flights were cut by a third its punctuality and reliability would skyrocket. Yes, that's certainly true. The same would be true if it had another runway. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On 2014-09-03 16:07:35 +0000, Recliner said:
Yes, that's certainly true. The same would be true if it had another runway. Also true - but will it just end up as full? Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On 02/09/2014 21:04, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:33:48 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Arthur Figgis remarked: One of life's big ironies a few years back was a Which? report slagging off foreign airports that falsely claimed to be close to well known cities. In the same issue they gave "London Stansted" a ringing endorsement, despite being further from its eponymous city than any of the foreign airports they were complaining about. To a certain extent, distance is less important than transport links. A distant airport with a fast and easy-to-use train to the city centre every 30 min, perhaps even a mainline connection to anywhere in the country, is less of an issue than a edge-of-town airport with a solitary bus... Stansted is OK southbound to London, And as it isn't calling itself "(somewhere that isn't London) Stansted", there isn't really a problem in the case under discussion. Bremen airport sucks if you are hoping to get a tram from the front door to somewhere that isn't Bremen, but of you actually want Bremen then it's great. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 17:48:11 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote: On 2014-09-03 16:07:35 +0000, Recliner said: Yes, that's certainly true. The same would be true if it had another runway. Also true - but will it just end up as full? Given half a chance, it probably would. I think part of a possible deal for a third runway is that they don't normally run at more than, say, 90% capacity, rather than the current 99%. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On 03/09/2014 00:23, Recliner wrote:
I live in West London, and Heathrow is far more convenient than any other airport. I live in south London, and... A friend lives in a village near Luton, and... Another friend lives near a stop for the direct bus to Leeds-Bradford, and... -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
In message , at 16:22:06 on Wed, 3 Sep
2014, Neil Williams remarked: Are you saying that the branding I mentioned is already what the general public understands to be the case? Branding by the airport? Probably not. But it is certainly well understood that, essentially, you go to Stansted to fly Ryanair (or to a much lesser extent easyJet) to Europe. It's certainly been increasingly dominated by Ryanair, who no doubt make lots of money flying people back and forth to one horse towns in Eastern Europe. But this doesn't make it a useful set of routes for most of us, nor the airline we'd choose to use on business (they aren't the only one, people using holiday charters could run into the same problem). It isnt *branded* as anything other than London Stansted Airport, which says nothing about where you can fly from there. Branding extends to much more than the name. -- Roland Perry |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
"Recliner" wrote in message ... "tim....." wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:22:49 +0100, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 02:36:55 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked: Having lived through the "Third airport" debacle, where unless I'm very much mistaken the result was expanding the biggest existing shortlisted airport (and rejecting otherwise preferred but more expensive builds), I wouldn't be surprised to see Gatwick being chosen for the "next new runway". By that logic, surely Heathrow would be chosen? Lots of local opposition, and much more expensive. True, but also much, much more demand for it. Apart from Gatwick airport itself, not many people are demanding a second runway there. Pretty much the entire business community and airline industry want Heathrow to expand. That's because they've all bought into the fiction that it will mean there is space for daily flights to Ulan Bator (insert list of other out of the way places that only 3 people a week want to travel to) thus increasing the trade that we do with um, Mongolia. Frankfurt already has direct flights to Ulaanbaatar. If there's enough business to justify flights from London, why shouldn't they be offered? If not, they obviously won't be. The point is that the market should decide, without artificial restraints. But IMHO the extra capacity wont be used this way. It'll be used to increase the number of flights a day to NYC from 30 to 60 to no-ones benefit except BA/AA/Etc That's your fantasy, not what the market is telling us. If there was a market for a lot more NYC flights, like this you mean: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...cus-on-US.html |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
"tim....." wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message ... "tim....." wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:22:49 +0100, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 02:36:55 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked: Having lived through the "Third airport" debacle, where unless I'm very much mistaken the result was expanding the biggest existing shortlisted airport (and rejecting otherwise preferred but more expensive builds), I wouldn't be surprised to see Gatwick being chosen for the "next new runway". By that logic, surely Heathrow would be chosen? Lots of local opposition, and much more expensive. True, but also much, much more demand for it. Apart from Gatwick airport itself, not many people are demanding a second runway there. Pretty much the entire business community and airline industry want Heathrow to expand. That's because they've all bought into the fiction that it will mean there is space for daily flights to Ulan Bator (insert list of other out of the way places that only 3 people a week want to travel to) thus increasing the trade that we do with um, Mongolia. Frankfurt already has direct flights to Ulaanbaatar. If there's enough business to justify flights from London, why shouldn't they be offered? If not, they obviously won't be. The point is that the market should decide, without artificial restraints. But IMHO the extra capacity wont be used this way. It'll be used to increase the number of flights a day to NYC from 30 to 60 to no-ones benefit except BA/AA/Etc That's your fantasy, not what the market is telling us. If there was a market for a lot more NYC flights, like this you mean: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...cus-on-US.html Interesting, I hadn't seen that.mi suppose it reflects Virgin's change if ownership, with Singapore's 49% being sold to Delta, which is using Virgin almost as an offshoot. I imagine it can feed a lot more of its frequent fliers from the US on to Virgin's transatlantic routes than it could the routes to Asia and Africa. But it's still sad to see Virgin pulling back from its world network (having dropped it's hard fought-for Sydney route a while ago). |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:15 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk