|
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
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. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On 2014-09-03 12:41:52 +0000, David Cantrell said:
If you lived in, for example, Hastings, which airport would you prefer to go to? Obviously Gatwick, yet Hastings is neither near Victoria or a Thameslink station. There are modes of transport other than trains. Luton and Stansted are mainly reached by car and taxi, and serve a wide area of the Home Counties and East Anglia as such. Indeed Luton is to a fairly significant extent a "South Midlands and Home Counties Airport" rather than a London one. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On 2014-09-03 12:50:28 +0000, Roland Perry said:
I used to fly to Geneva a lot (on business all year round) and all they seem to have now is one seasonal route. Sleazy have for at least the last few years concentrated GVA on Luton and Gatwick, because of a larger number of business travellers (there are a lot of regulars on LTN-GVA, I was for 2 years). Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On 2014-09-03 12:52:54 +0000, Roland Perry said:
I used to drive to Luton (where the parking in the mid-stay just outside the tunnel[1], from where you can walk to the terminal) wasn't too bad. Like you, the times of the flights ruled out using public transport. They like to ban you from walking from there now (the pavement on the far side of the road is fenced off for its full length now) but I think (fewer) people still do. FWIW, the long term also isn't bad (it is my first choice), it's just round the back, and its big advantage is that you can reach it from the approach road by going the back way without queueing at the approach road roundabout (the shuttle bus is quite good at pushing in). Though the queues aren't half as bad as they were when they had that stupid set of traffic lights in. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
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. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 10:10:58 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:00:07 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014, d remarked: Just how exactly does a hub airport help UK plc when most of the passengers will be passing through on to elsewhere and will probably just spend a few quid in duty free? It helps because they don't just buy a few duty-frees, they buy a whole onward flight, with all the infrastructure and staffing which that implies. So some construction work and a couple of hundred airport staffing jobs plus air fares that probably go to a foreign airline in a foreign bank. Well obviously thats really worth all the pollution , noise and a few billion quid of taxpayers money. -- Spud |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 13:13:20 +0100
David Cantrell wrote: On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 04:00:52PM +0000, d wrote: If we see air travel as a necessity, even if that is an evil necessity, Do we? Yes. Taking society as a whole, yes we do. That you personally don't isn't of any importance. So you think if a survey was done asking whether air travel was a necessity like food or water or public transport you think most people would answer yes? Really? -- Spud |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 14:00:47 +0100
Recliner wrote: On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 09:00:25 GMT, d wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 19:50:36 -0500 Recliner wrote: wrote: The CBI is a private political lobbying organisation that represents a small fraction of businesses in this country. Got a proper example? Perhaps the Royal Company of Self-Employed Contract Programmers Who Don't Fly Very Often has a view? That'll be a no then. It'll be a no to answering your repeated silly questions. When you don't have an answer its usually best not to say anything rather than dig the hole even deeper. Your spade must be wearing out by now. -- Spud |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
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. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
In message , at 13:58:17 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014,
Mizter T remarked: don't forget they just decided to cut the last two trains to London in the evening. I guess you're referring to the 0100 and 0130 trains which only ran on Friday and Saturday mornings, rather than throughout the week. The announcement just said "the current 0100 and 0130 services", no mentions of days of the week. They only ever ran on Friday and Saturday mornings. Thus the announcement is not inaccurate. But apparently a bit misleading. Why would they deliberately put out an announcement that made things seems worse than they really are? -- Roland Perry |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
In message , at 14:01:06 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014,
Mizter T remarked: How many destinations outside Europe? (OK, I see there's a flight to Las Vegas planned for next year). Just because most destinations are in Europe doesn't equate to the airport serving "very limited destinations" It does, because many people have destinations outside Europe. It Stansted wants to re-brand as "The gateway to Europe - all other fliers try Heathrow", then fine. - that would mean just a few destinations, and there are in fact many. I wonder how many are served the twice a day needed to make useful business trips (out in the morning, back in the evening a day or two later). I suspect (but don't have the time to check) that many destinations are less than daily. -- Roland Perry |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On 03/09/2014 15:11, Neil Williams wrote: On 2014-09-03 12:41:52 +0000, David Cantrell said: If you lived in, for example, Hastings, which airport would you prefer to go to? Obviously Gatwick, yet Hastings is neither near Victoria or a Thameslink station. There are modes of transport other than trains. Luton and Stansted are mainly reached by car and taxi, and serve a wide area of the Home Counties and East Anglia as such. Indeed Luton is to a fairly significant extent a "South Midlands and Home Counties Airport" rather than a London one. Incorrect for Stansted, which had 51% of pax using public transport (bus, coach and rail) in 2013 - see page 23: http://www.stanstedairport.com/media/1220647/sustainable-development-plan-surface-access-online-lr-20.08.14.pdf Luton meanwhile had 32% of pax using public transport in 2010 - page 21, PDF page 11: http://www.london-luton.co.uk/en/download/179/Airport%20Surface%20Access%20Strategy.pdf |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
|
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On 2014-09-03 14:44:46 +0000, Roland Perry said:
It does, because many people have destinations outside Europe. It Stansted wants to re-brand as "The gateway to Europe - all other fliers try Heathrow", then fine. Stansted already is an airport you go to if you want a LCC to Europe, and it has a massive array of such services. So I disagree with you. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On 03/09/2014 15:44, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 14:01:06 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Mizter T remarked: How many destinations outside Europe? (OK, I see there's a flight to Las Vegas planned for next year). Just because most destinations are in Europe doesn't equate to the airport serving "very limited destinations" It does, because many people have destinations outside Europe. It Stansted wants to re-brand as "The gateway to Europe - all other fliers try Heathrow", then fine. The man on the Clapham Omnibus would not regard Stansted as serving a "very limited" range of destinations, nor would a court. The Roland Perry interpretation of language thus doesn't stand up. - that would mean just a few destinations, and there are in fact many. I wonder how many are served the twice a day needed to make useful business trips (out in the morning, back in the evening a day or two later). I suspect (but don't have the time to check) that many destinations are less than daily. Two recent articles about Ryanair increasing frequencies on key business routes, many from Stansted: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-business-drives-ryanair39s-uk-domestic-401054/ http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/240503/ryanair-delivers-on-stansted-growth-promise/ |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On 03/09/2014 15:52, Neil Williams wrote: On 2014-09-03 14:44:46 +0000, Roland Perry said: It does, because many people have destinations outside Europe. It Stansted wants to re-brand as "The gateway to Europe - all other fliers try Heathrow", then fine. Stansted already is an airport you go to if you want a LCC to Europe, and it has a massive array of such services. So I disagree with you. On that theme, a significant number of pax from around Europe use it for DIY transfers. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
In message , at 15:52:57 on Wed, 3 Sep
2014, Neil Williams remarked: It does, because many people have destinations outside Europe. It Stansted wants to re-brand as "The gateway to Europe - all other fliers try Heathrow", then fine. Stansted already is an airport you go to if you want a LCC to Europe, and it has a massive array of such services. So I disagree with you. Are you saying that the branding I mentioned is already what the general public understands to be the case? -- Roland Perry |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
In message , at 16:02:21 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014,
Mizter T remarked: Stansted wants to re-brand as "The gateway to Europe - all other fliers try Heathrow", then fine. The man on the Clapham Omnibus would not regard Stansted as serving a "very limited" range of destinations, nor would a court. The Roland Perry interpretation of language thus doesn't stand up. It's limited to *some* destinations, almost exclusively in *Europe*. (And not necessarily daily) There are many places *in* Europe and even more *outside* Europe which make it a very long way from being a general purpose airport like Heathrow or Gatwick, or even Birmingham and Manchester. -- Roland Perry |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On 2014-09-03 15:10:56 +0000, Roland Perry said:
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 isnt *branded* as anything other than London Stansted Airport, which says nothing about where you can fly from there. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
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 Wed, 03 Sep 2014 14:25:11 GMT, d wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 14:00:47 +0100 Recliner wrote: On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 09:00:25 GMT, d wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 19:50:36 -0500 Recliner wrote: wrote: The CBI is a private political lobbying organisation that represents a small fraction of businesses in this country. Got a proper example? Perhaps the Royal Company of Self-Employed Contract Programmers Who Don't Fly Very Often has a view? That'll be a no then. It'll be a no to answering your repeated silly questions. When you don't have an answer its usually best not to say anything rather than dig the hole even deeper. Your spade must be wearing out by now. I can't be bothered repeatedly answering your questions on this topic. We know you're afraid of flying and resent others doing what you can't, and nothing anyone says changes that. |
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). |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
In message
, at 14:36:43 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked: 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). Doesn't this simply show that "Virgin" airlines is just Delta (was Singapore Airlines) with a subsidiary that happens to pay a lot for an iconic branding. Just like Virgin Media is NTL paying slightly less for the same. -- Roland Perry |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:36:43 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked: 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). Doesn't this simply show that "Virgin" airlines is just Delta (was Singapore Airlines) with a subsidiary that happens to pay a lot for an iconic branding. Just like Virgin Media is NTL paying slightly less for the same. Not quite the same: Virgin Atlantic is still 51% owned by Branson, whereas he owns very little of Virgin Media which, as you say, is really just a rebranded NTL. Delta, like Singapore Airlines, wouldn't be allowed to buy a majority share of Virgin Atlantic. I think it also can't be seen to control an EU airline, just as Branson had to fight hard to prove he didn't control Virgin America. Protectionism is alive and well in the airline industry. SQ never really integrated with Virgin Atlantic, and seemed to treat it more as an arms length investment rather than an associate (they didn't even share lounges at Heathrow, nor combine fleet orders). Branson was always closely associated with VS's management, which he's never been with Virgin Media, where he just appears in some of the ads. SQ eventually decided to put its investment up for sale, and when the change did happen, it didn't affect Virgin's operations as there was minimal integration. SQ made a loss on the sale, and probably wished it had never made the investment. It looks like Virgin, like other European airlines, has been hit hard by the Middle East Big Three airlines, making some of its long haul Asian, Australian and African routes unprofitable. It seems to be returning to its roots (and name), to concentrate on its US routes (where it doesn't have to compete with Emirates, etc), particularly to Skyteam hubs. I guess VS will soon join Skyteam, whereas it never joined Star during its many SQ years. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 14:36:43 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked: 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). Doesn't this simply show that "Virgin" airlines is just Delta (was Singapore Airlines) with a subsidiary that happens to pay a lot for an iconic branding. Just like Virgin Media is NTL paying slightly less for the same. I don't care But what I do care about is that it helps to prove my prove my point, that if you have all of the infrastructure required to operate extra flights to the US, in competition with 6 other airlines, or to obscure parts of the Far East competing with no-one ... the extra flights to the US win hands down. (The fact that the parts of the Far East Virgin have pulled out from aren't actually obscure, is even more compelling IMV) I hear Recliner's point that there is obviously extra demand from airlines to fly these flights from LHR and that if they were allowed to do so the costs of the expansion would be paid for easily. But what I don't buy, is all is nonsense that the extra runway will help the general economy by providing frequent flights (and hence possibilities of new trade) to (/from) dozens of new (new world) locations - cos it wont. tim |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
In message
, at 15:19:19 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked: Doesn't this simply show that "Virgin" airlines is just Delta (was Singapore Airlines) with a subsidiary that happens to pay a lot for an iconic branding. Just like Virgin Media is NTL paying slightly less for the same. Not quite the same I'm quite sure it's much more "the same" than the picture you paint (that picture being what they want us to believe). -- Roland Perry |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
In message , at 21:22:23 on Wed, 3 Sep
2014, tim..... remarked: Doesn't this simply show that "Virgin" airlines is just Delta (was Singapore Airlines) with a subsidiary that happens to pay a lot for an iconic branding. Just like Virgin Media is NTL paying slightly less for the same. I don't care But what I do care about is that it helps to prove my prove my point, that if you have all of the infrastructure required to operate extra flights to the US, in competition with 6 other airlines, or to obscure parts of the Far East competing with no-one ... Except I do agree with Recliner that there's been massive new competition on the Far East routes, and as well as Singapore throwing in the towel from that direction, the new buyer is clearly interested in feeding more customers to its own domestic routes. the extra flights to the US win hands down. (The fact that the parts of the Far East Virgin have pulled out from aren't actually obscure, is even more compelling IMV) I hear Recliner's point that there is obviously extra demand from airlines to fly these flights from LHR and that if they were allowed to do so the costs of the expansion would be paid for easily. But what I don't buy, is all is nonsense that the extra runway will help the general economy by providing frequent flights (and hence possibilities of new trade) to (/from) dozens of new (new world) locations - cos it wont. It already is, so the only effect of a new runway will be "more of the same", rather than "stuck at the current amount". On the other hand, if Gatwick gets the runway, expect Heathrow flights that don't generate transit (aka hubbing) passengers to be displaced by ones which do. The result being that Heathrow will become even more hub-orientated, even if the number of flights a day remains the same. -- Roland Perry |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
In article , (Mizter T) wrote:
On 03/09/2014 13:50, Roland Perry wrote: [...] Gatwick is as convenient to get to and from as Heathrow for us in Cambridge. But presumably Stansted is far better than either? Yes, but with very limited destinations. Almost nothing outside Europe. And even then, the last two European trips booked by household members used different airports (in particular Gatwick for one on account of route availability). And of course Stansted is famously no good for the USA, although during the short periods when that continent was available, we did use it. I wouldn't say the destinations reachable from Stansted were "very limited"... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_...port#Passenger How many destinations outside Europe? (OK, I see there's a flight to Las Vegas planned for next year). Just because most destinations are in Europe doesn't equate to the airport serving "very limited destinations" - that would mean just a few destinations, and there are in fact many. It's some time since I found they had flights to somewhere I was actually trying to fly to. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote: In message , at 04:38:40 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014, remarked: Gatwick is as convenient to get to and from as Heathrow for us in Cambridge. And Birmingham even more convenient (by road anyway, it probably ties with Gatwick or Heathrow by train from Ely, except at unsocial hours when the train services deteriorate). Rail access to Birmingham airport from Cambridge is much worse It's not "much" worse, most of the day. I know that the Journey Planners add a pessimistic connection time at Kings Cross, but the headline figures are identical from Ely (not everyone lives in Cambridge, you know!) For all I know the connection times at New Street have similar pessimisms built in. The trouble is that you are stuck with such idiocies when booking advance tickets. And Cambridge is over 6 times the size of Ely, by the way. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
|
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
In article , (Mizter T) wrote:
*Subject:* As predicted, Boris Island sunk *From:* Mizter T *Date:* Wed, 03 Sep 2014 15:27:41 +0100 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. A bit like student tuition fees then? Kicked into the long grass by the Labour government with a muddled implementation by the coalition. I reckon a Labour government would expand Heathrow because they don't have enough marginal seats at stake. The Tories have some big troublemakers if they try to do the same. Didn't Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) threaten to resign and cause a byelection? And Justine Greening (Putney) blocked it while Transport Secretary and got moved for her pains. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
"tim....." wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 14:36:43 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked: 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). Doesn't this simply show that "Virgin" airlines is just Delta (was Singapore Airlines) with a subsidiary that happens to pay a lot for an iconic branding. Just like Virgin Media is NTL paying slightly less for the same. I don't care But what I do care about is that it helps to prove my prove my point, that if you have all of the infrastructure required to operate extra flights to the US, in competition with 6 other airlines, or to obscure parts of the Far East competing with no-one ... the extra flights to the US win hands down. (The fact that the parts of the Far East Virgin have pulled out from aren't actually obscure, is even more compelling IMV) I think Virgin lost out to the ME3 on flights to places like Bombay, Cape Town and Sydney; flights to Delta hubs in the US will be more profitable. Even BA has pulled all of its Australian routes other than to Sydney, and Qantas has had to switch its alliance on the Kangaroo route to Emirates. I hear Recliner's point that there is obviously extra demand from airlines to fly these flights from LHR and that if they were allowed to do so the costs of the expansion would be paid for easily. But what I don't buy, is all is nonsense that the extra runway will help the general economy by providing frequent flights (and hence possibilities of new trade) to (/from) dozens of new (new world) locations - cos it wont. There will be flights to more Asian and maybe South American destinations, but the first-time new routes take a while to build up large enough loads to be profitable. Additional flights to the big US hubs can be profitable much quicker. For example, BA now has direct flights to Chengdu in China, but I gather that load factors are lower than the new Austin route. BA probably won't add additional Chinese cities until Chengdu is in the black. But it probably wouldn't have added it at all if it hadn't got the bmi slots. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk