|
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
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 |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
In message
, at 01:57:03 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked: 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 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". Doesn't the plan to redevelop the railway station there almost take that outcome for granted? -- Roland Perry |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 01:57:03 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked: 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 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? All the logic favours a third Heathrow runway as first choice, with a second Gatwick runway the next expansion option a few years later. Doesn't the plan to redevelop the railway station there almost take that outcome for granted? I don't know the details, but if the new runway and terminals are well to the south of the existing railway station, wouldn't the station need to be moved as well as expanded? There would almost certainly need to be a new, fast, direct rail link between the airports as well, if they're to share the hub airport role. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
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. All the logic favours a third Heathrow runway as first choice, with a second Gatwick runway the next expansion option a few years later. Doesn't the plan to redevelop the railway station there almost take that outcome for granted? I don't know the details, but if the new runway and terminals are well to the south of the existing railway station, The new terminal will be between the old and new runways, no further from the station than the current North Terminal (with its shuttle train). wouldn't the station need to be moved as well as expanded? No. There would almost certainly need to be a new, fast, direct rail link between the airports as well, if they're to share the hub airport role. No. The proposal is to keep the most valuable "hub" flights at Heathrow and move the more point-to-point ones to Gatwick. -- Roland Perry |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
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. All the logic favours a third Heathrow runway as first choice, with a second Gatwick runway the next expansion option a few years later. Doesn't the plan to redevelop the railway station there almost take that outcome for granted? I don't know the details, but if the new runway and terminals are well to the south of the existing railway station, The new terminal will be between the old and new runways, no further from the station than the current North Terminal (with its shuttle train). If it's the other side of the existing runway, it'll be a lot further from the current south terminal than the north terminal is. wouldn't the station need to be moved as well as expanded? No. There would almost certainly need to be a new, fast, direct rail link between the airports as well, if they're to share the hub airport role. No. The proposal is to keep the most valuable "hub" flights at Heathrow and move the more point-to-point ones to Gatwick. But how do you decide that the point-to-point flights don't support the hub flights? |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
In message , at 10:44:46 on
Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked: The new terminal will be between the old and new runways, no further from the station than the current North Terminal (with its shuttle train). If it's the other side of the existing runway, it'll be a lot further from the current south terminal than the north terminal is. No it won't. The new terminal will be quite thin and east-west between the runways. wouldn't the station need to be moved as well as expanded? No. There would almost certainly need to be a new, fast, direct rail link between the airports as well, if they're to share the hub airport role. No. The proposal is to keep the most valuable "hub" flights at Heathrow and move the more point-to-point ones to Gatwick. But how do you decide that the point-to-point flights don't support the hub flights? Because you have access to the information about who is taking which flight, and hence which pairs of flights have the most people transiting. -- Roland Perry |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:50:48 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 10:44:46 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked: The new terminal will be between the old and new runways, no further from the station than the current North Terminal (with its shuttle train). If it's the other side of the existing runway, it'll be a lot further from the current south terminal than the north terminal is. No it won't. The new terminal will be quite thin and east-west between the runways. So, roughly slightly south of where the A23 runs today? In fact, it would be about where the original Gatwick terminal was (the Beehive). wouldn't the station need to be moved as well as expanded? No. There would almost certainly need to be a new, fast, direct rail link between the airports as well, if they're to share the hub airport role. No. The proposal is to keep the most valuable "hub" flights at Heathrow and move the more point-to-point ones to Gatwick. But how do you decide that the point-to-point flights don't support the hub flights? Because you have access to the information about who is taking which flight, and hence which pairs of flights have the most people transiting. That would imply a move forced on reluctant airlines, who would no doubt sue to keep their much more valuable Heathrow slots. I can't imagine a single airline would want to move a single flight from Heathrow to Gatwick without massive compensation. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 02:36:55 -0500
Recliner wrote: Roland Perry wrote: 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? All the logic favours a third Heathrow runway as first choice, with a second Gatwick runway the next expansion option a few years later. Logic actually favours no expansion at all. The much quoted hub airport will do nothing for UK Plc other than put more money into the pockets of the airport owners and will be an enviromental disaster wherever its located. But of course as soon as someone says this you get the usual vested interests shouting them down saying they're anti business and banging on about "growth". As if a constant increase in GDP is all that makes a pleasant country to live in. -- Spud |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 10:44:46 +0100
Recliner wrote: On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:22:49 +0100, Roland Perry 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. Which "entire business community" would this be then? Give some examples. -- Spud |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
|
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
In message , at 11:18:08 on
Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked: On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:50:48 +0100, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 10:44:46 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked: The new terminal will be between the old and new runways, no further from the station than the current North Terminal (with its shuttle train). If it's the other side of the existing runway, it'll be a lot further from the current south terminal than the north terminal is. No it won't. The new terminal will be quite thin and east-west between the runways. So, roughly slightly south of where the A23 runs today? North is the impression I get from this pictu http://www.gatwickobviously.com/debate The proposal is to keep the most valuable "hub" flights at Heathrow and move the more point-to-point ones to Gatwick. But how do you decide that the point-to-point flights don't support the hub flights? Because you have access to the information about who is taking which flight, and hence which pairs of flights have the most people transiting. That would imply a move forced on reluctant airlines, who would no doubt sue to keep their much more valuable Heathrow slots. I can't imagine a single airline would want to move a single flight from Heathrow to Gatwick without massive compensation. I'm not suggesting they'll cancel existing slots, but new ones will only be available at Gatwick. The airlines will have to decide where to juggle their flights. -- Roland Perry |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
Logic actually favours no expansion at all. The much quoted hub
airport will do nothing for UK Plc other than put more money into the pockets of the airport owners and will be an enviromental disaster wherever its located. But of course as soon as someone says this you get the usual vested interests shouting them down saying they're anti business and banging on about "growth". So all those other countries/cities[1] which have developed 4-runway[2] airports are stupid? As if a constant increase in GDP is all that makes a pleasant country to live in. Could luck campaiging for votes on a manifesto of "let's stand still and let the rest of the world get richer". You might be happy with the prospect of the same per capita GDP (PPP) as, say, the average African has currently but I doubt many others would. [1] eg Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Tokyo, Madrid, [2] in some cases more -- Robin reply to address is (meant to be) valid |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
In message , at 11:50:51 on Tue, 2 Sep
2014, Someone Somewhere remarked: I haven't looked at the schedules but I can well believe every London airport has several flights a day to particular european destinations that could easily be consolidated into less "movements" in larger, more efficient, planes if that were the case. Heathrow/Gatwick don't have flights to very many European destinations. That market is dominated by low-cost airlines from other airports. -- Roland Perry |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 11:51:11 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 11:18:08 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked: On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:50:48 +0100, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 10:44:46 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked: The new terminal will be between the old and new runways, no further from the station than the current North Terminal (with its shuttle train). If it's the other side of the existing runway, it'll be a lot further from the current south terminal than the north terminal is. No it won't. The new terminal will be quite thin and east-west between the runways. So, roughly slightly south of where the A23 runs today? North is the impression I get from this pictu http://www.gatwickobviously.com/debate That looks like it's just about on the position of the current A23. It shows the new terminal building as being, as one would expect, about as far south of the current runway as the current main terminal is north of it. It's quite a distance from the current railway station, much further than the North terminal. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 12:08:00 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 11:50:51 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Someone Somewhere remarked: I haven't looked at the schedules but I can well believe every London airport has several flights a day to particular european destinations that could easily be consolidated into less "movements" in larger, more efficient, planes if that were the case. Heathrow/Gatwick don't have flights to very many European destinations. That market is dominated by low-cost airlines from other airports. That's certainly true of the holiday resorts, but the major European cities tend to have flights to Heathrow and Gatwick. Also, don't forget that easyJet is now Gatwick's major airline, thus reinforcing its position as being much less of a business airport than Heathrow. Indeed, BA, which dominated the North terminal when it first opened, will soon be squeezed out of that terminal, into the older South terminal. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
In message , at 12:16:52 on
Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked: North is the impression I get from this pictu http://www.gatwickobviously.com/debate That looks like it's just about on the position of the current A23. It shows the new terminal building as being, as one would expect, about as far south of the current runway as the current main terminal is north of it. It's quite a distance from the current railway station, much further than the North terminal. The current main terminal is alongside the station! http://goo.gl/maps/ohZXO And if you draw another arc mirroring the shuttle to the north terminal (you aren't getting confused by the satellite I hope) it'll end up exactly where the new terminal is pictured, just south of the eastern end of the existing runway. -- Roland Perry |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
In message , at 12:22:10 on
Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked: I haven't looked at the schedules but I can well believe every London airport has several flights a day to particular european destinations that could easily be consolidated into less "movements" in larger, more efficient, planes if that were the case. Heathrow/Gatwick don't have flights to very many European destinations. That market is dominated by low-cost airlines from other airports. That's certainly true of the holiday resorts, but the major European cities tend to have flights to Heathrow and Gatwick. That's not many cities though, and we know that flights to Brussels and Paris are much reduced on account of Eurostar. If we take the next most significant capital, Berlin, there are just ten flights a day from Heathrow (seven by BA, three Germanwings) and three from Gatwick (all Easyjet). Frankfurt has a few more from Heathrow, but none from Gatwick. -- Roland Perry |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
In message , at 12:22:10 on
Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked: BA, which dominated the North terminal when it first opened, will soon be squeezed out of that terminal, into the older South terminal. Which they must have inherited from the British Caledonian routes (the takeover was almost the same month the terminal opened). BA subsequently decided that its long-haul should be predominantly from Heathrow. -- Roland Perry |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 12:27:49 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 12:16:52 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked: North is the impression I get from this pictu http://www.gatwickobviously.com/debate That looks like it's just about on the position of the current A23. It shows the new terminal building as being, as one would expect, about as far south of the current runway as the current main terminal is north of it. It's quite a distance from the current railway station, much further than the North terminal. The current main terminal is alongside the station! Of course I know that -- I have used Gatwick, you know. I was obviously talking about how far the new terminal would be from the existing south terminal and the railway station. http://goo.gl/maps/ohZXO And if you draw another arc mirroring the shuttle to the north terminal (you aren't getting confused by the satellite I hope) it'll end up exactly where the new terminal is pictured, just south of the eastern end of the existing runway. No, it's nearly twice as far. A flipped arc would get you just beyond the end of the runway, not the terminal. And, no, I'm obviously not confused by the satellite (I'm not Mr Bell). I've used it both when it had its little shuttle train, and since that was removed. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 12:47:40 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 12:22:10 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked: BA, which dominated the North terminal when it first opened, will soon be squeezed out of that terminal, into the older South terminal. Which they must have inherited from the British Caledonian routes (the takeover was almost the same month the terminal opened). BA subsequently decided that its long-haul should be predominantly from Heathrow. Basically, BA puts as many flights into Heathrow as will fit, with the overflow left in Gatwick. As long haul is more profitable, it's largely in Heathrow, apart from beach flights. Virgin does exactly the same. Most US airlines moved entirely to Heathrow as soon as they were allowed to. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
In message , at 13:04:37 on
Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked: http://goo.gl/maps/ohZXO And if you draw another arc mirroring the shuttle to the north terminal (you aren't getting confused by the satellite I hope) it'll end up exactly where the new terminal is pictured, just south of the eastern end of the existing runway. No, it's nearly twice as far. A flipped arc would get you just beyond the end of the runway, not the terminal. But the corner of the terminal is only a taxi-way (or about three plane-lengths) from the corner of the runway. Utterly trivial for a shuttle train's transit time. -- Roland Perry |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
In message , at 13:07:29 on
Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked: Basically, BA puts as many flights into Heathrow as will fit, with the overflow left in Gatwick. As long haul is more profitable, it's largely in Heathrow, apart from beach flights. Virgin does exactly the same. Exactly - and it's those beach flights which are the ones least likely to be benefiting from a hub effect. -- Roland Perry |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 13:14:48 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 13:07:29 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked: Basically, BA puts as many flights into Heathrow as will fit, with the overflow left in Gatwick. As long haul is more profitable, it's largely in Heathrow, apart from beach flights. Virgin does exactly the same. Exactly - and it's those beach flights which are the ones least likely to be benefiting from a hub effect. True, but the demand is for more hub flights, which is why it's Heathrow that's bursting at the seams, while LCC-focused Stansted and Gatwick are short of business. With six international airports, London isn't really short of runway capacity, but it desperately needs a bigger hub airport. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 13:13:07 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 13:04:37 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked: http://goo.gl/maps/ohZXO And if you draw another arc mirroring the shuttle to the north terminal (you aren't getting confused by the satellite I hope) it'll end up exactly where the new terminal is pictured, just south of the eastern end of the existing runway. No, it's nearly twice as far. A flipped arc would get you just beyond the end of the runway, not the terminal. But the corner of the terminal is only a taxi-way (or about three plane-lengths) from the corner of the runway. Utterly trivial for a shuttle train's transit time. Of course, this discussion of the length of a flipped arc is all a bit academic, as the inter-terminal link would be underground, and would presumably take a straighter, more direct route under the runway and two taxiways, rather like the Barajas T4 link. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
In message , at 14:02:55 on
Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked: Basically, BA puts as many flights into Heathrow as will fit, with the overflow left in Gatwick. As long haul is more profitable, it's largely in Heathrow, apart from beach flights. Virgin does exactly the same. Exactly - and it's those beach flights which are the ones least likely to be benefiting from a hub effect. True, but the demand is for more hub flights, which is why it's Heathrow that's bursting at the seams, while LCC-focused Stansted and Gatwick are short of business. With six international airports, London isn't really short of runway capacity, but it desperately needs a bigger hub airport. What it needs to do is shift some of the non-hub flights away from Heathrow. -- Roland Perry |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:02:55 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked: Basically, BA puts as many flights into Heathrow as will fit, with the overflow left in Gatwick. As long haul is more profitable, it's largely in Heathrow, apart from beach flights. Virgin does exactly the same. Exactly - and it's those beach flights which are the ones least likely to be benefiting from a hub effect. True, but the demand is for more hub flights, which is why it's Heathrow that's bursting at the seams, while LCC-focused Stansted and Gatwick are short of business. With six international airports, London isn't really short of runway capacity, but it desperately needs a bigger hub airport. What it needs to do is shift some of the non-hub flights away from Heathrow. The airlines operating those flights obviously thought it worthwhile to pay for expensive slot pairs at Heathrow, instead of the much cheaper ones at Gatwick or the even cheaper ones at Stansted. Gatwick actually lost *all* of its US airlines to Heathrow. The fact is that the demand is overwhelmingly at Heathrow, while Gatwick says it has 25% spare capacity. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 11:44:10 +0100
Recliner wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 10:41:33 GMT, d wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 10:44:46 +0100 Recliner wrote: On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:22:49 +0100, Roland Perry 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. Which "entire business community" would this be then? Give some examples. http://www.theguardian.com/business/...ick-airport-ex ansion The CBI is a private political lobbying organisation that represents a small fraction of businesses in this country. Got a proper example? -- Spud |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
In message
, at 10:33:56 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked: What it needs to do is shift some of the non-hub flights away from Heathrow. The airlines operating those flights obviously thought it worthwhile to pay for expensive slot pairs at Heathrow, instead of the much cheaper ones at Gatwick or the even cheaper ones at Stansted. But with limited capacity they need to make decisions about which are the mist valuable flights to continue from Heathrow. Gatwick actually lost *all* of its US airlines to Heathrow. Yes, but back in the day every US electronic component company thought they had to be in Bath Road, Slough. The fact is that the demand is overwhelmingly at Heathrow, while Gatwick says it has 25% spare capacity. But if the cost (political etc) of expanding Heathrow is too high... -- Roland Perry |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 11:50:51 +0100
Someone Somewhere wrote: On 02/09/2014 11:40, d wrote: Logic actually favours no expansion at all. By this you mean your logic or the logic you're minded to believe in? This logic: Expansion will do next to nothing for UK business Will add to pollution Will add to noise The hub part is one argument, but it can clearly be argued that expansion to even handle the current number of flights is necessary to prevent stacking or horrendous problems caused by the smallest of issues due to lack of over-capacity. Flights arn't a natural phenomenon that have to be dealt with. They don't suddenly appear out of the ether. If the airports can't cope with the amount of flights they shouldn't give the airlines the slots in the first place. Simple. If they're over capacity its their own damn faults. I await the response that if you build more capacity it will fill up, So you don't think it will after a decade or 2? and you hear the same argument about road building. Strangely, it's rarely used when it comes to railways. But in any case if people feel Apart from HS1 and crossrail, when was the last time a major railway was built in this country? Or to be more precise - which century? And have you no noticed all the complaining about HS2? so strongly about such things they should examine their overall travelling habits - but then they couldn't have their big house in the leafy suburbs.... I don't fly more than once every few years, and I try and use public transport where possible. So I might not be at the top of the moral high ground but I suspect I'm higher up than most. And good luck buying a house in a city centre these days. If we see air travel as a necessity, even if that is an evil necessity, Do we? then logic would dictate that you need a single airport that is easy and quick to get to from all parts of the area it serves to use the capacity as efficiently as possible - I haven't looked at the schedules but I can well believe every London airport has several flights a day to particular european destinations that could easily be consolidated into less "movements" in larger, more efficient, planes if that were the case. Probably, but they're no doubt run by different airlines who would cry foul if one airline was given sole responsibility for a route. Unless they had a rota. Either way, can't see it happening. -- Spud |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 12:01:02 +0100
"Robin" wrote: Logic actually favours no expansion at all. The much quoted hub airport will do nothing for UK Plc other than put more money into the pockets of the airport owners and will be an enviromental disaster wherever its located. But of course as soon as someone says this you get the usual vested interests shouting them down saying they're anti business and banging on about "growth". So all those other countries/cities[1] which have developed 4-runway[2] airports are stupid? How many airports does each of those cities have? As a reference point London has: Heathrow Gatwick Luton Stansted City Southend And people honestly believe we need even more capacity. Its a ****ing joke. As if a constant increase in GDP is all that makes a pleasant country to live in. Could luck campaiging for votes on a manifesto of "let's stand still and let the rest of the world get richer". You might be happy with the prospect of the same per capita GDP (PPP) as, say, the average African has currently but I doubt many others would. Do you understand what GDP is? Its simply the amount of money moving around the system, its not an absolute measure of wealth, health or prosperity. If you want a high GDP you simply get people buying disposable crap they don't need which is why politicians love it when retail does well. -- Spud |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
In message , at 16:04:23 on Tue, 2 Sep
2014, d remarked: How many airports does each of those cities have? As a reference point London has: Heathrow Gatwick Luton Stansted City Southend You forgot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Oxford_Airport -- Roland Perry |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 17:13:21 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 16:04:23 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, d remarked: How many airports does each of those cities have? As a reference point London has: Heathrow Gatwick Luton Stansted City Southend You forgot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Oxford_Airport Thats more an airfield than a proper airport - I doubt an airbus could even taxi on it , much less land. But if you want to include that then we shouldn't forget about Biggin Hill. -- Spud |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
In message , at 16:42:53 on Tue, 2 Sep
2014, d remarked: London has: Heathrow Gatwick Luton Stansted City Southend You forgot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Oxford_Airport Thats more an airfield than a proper airport - I doubt an airbus could even taxi on it , much less land. But if you want to include that then we shouldn't forget about Biggin Hill. I'm including places which market themselves with "London" in the name. 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. -- Roland Perry |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
"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. 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 tim |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
"Recliner" wrote in message ... On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 13:14:48 +0100, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 13:07:29 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked: Basically, BA puts as many flights into Heathrow as will fit, with the overflow left in Gatwick. As long haul is more profitable, it's largely in Heathrow, apart from beach flights. Virgin does exactly the same. Exactly - and it's those beach flights which are the ones least likely to be benefiting from a hub effect. True, but the demand is for more hub flights, Is it? there are plenty of people saying that it is point to point leisure that is going to see the biggest increase in demand |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On 02/09/2014 18:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:42:53 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, d remarked: London has: Heathrow Gatwick Luton Stansted City Southend You forgot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Oxford_Airport Thats more an airfield than a proper airport - I doubt an airbus could even taxi on it , much less land. But if you want to include that then we shouldn't forget about Biggin Hill. I'm including places which market themselves with "London" in the name. London Ashford. 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 which leaves just before you can reach the stop (and which requires trawling badly-implemented local authority websites to discover how to buy, activate, charge-up and use an [insert name of sea creature]-card), or one where passengers act as a kind of welfare state for the friends and relations of the taxi drivers. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
"tim....." wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message ... On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 13:14:48 +0100, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 13:07:29 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked: Basically, BA puts as many flights into Heathrow as will fit, with the overflow left in Gatwick. As long haul is more profitable, it's largely in Heathrow, apart from beach flights. Virgin does exactly the same. Exactly - and it's those beach flights which are the ones least likely to be benefiting from a hub effect. True, but the demand is for more hub flights, Is it? there are plenty of people saying that it is point to point leisure that is going to see the biggest increase in demand People can predict whatever they like, but the price of Heathrow slots demonstrates very clearly where the tangible demand lies. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:33:56 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked: What it needs to do is shift some of the non-hub flights away from Heathrow. The airlines operating those flights obviously thought it worthwhile to pay for expensive slot pairs at Heathrow, instead of the much cheaper ones at Gatwick or the even cheaper ones at Stansted. But with limited capacity they need to make decisions about which are the mist valuable flights to continue from Heathrow. Gatwick actually lost *all* of its US airlines to Heathrow. Yes, but back in the day every US electronic component company thought they had to be in Bath Road, Slough. These are recent decisions. The fact is that the demand is overwhelmingly at Heathrow, while Gatwick says it has 25% spare capacity. But if the cost (political etc) of expanding Heathrow is too high... That's why the decision has been out off till just after the election. If they were going to choose Gatwick, they could have done so at any time. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
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, as long as you take the timings with a pinch of salt (the advertised time is only as far as Tottenham Hale, which in some respects one can't deny is "London"). Anywhere else and it's a joke. And don't forget they just decided to cut the last two trains to London in the evening. -- Roland Perry |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk