Airport expansions

[camflyer]

That would have the benefit of reducing the pressure to build a third runway at Heathrow, which the previous UK government had eventually agreed is not needed.

That would be the same previous government which decided that the northern leg of HS2 was "not needed".

 

[route101]

Edinburgh to me will require a big terminal extension if passenger numbers keep rising.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Because they need those people to fill the aircraft

Thank you, that has been my point all along. The transfer passengers contribute nothing, they’re simply filling up empty seats.

they allow airlines to fill up spare capacity and help make more routes viable.

That has been my point all along. Heathrow is at capacity and needs an extra runway but, at the same time, the airlines are having to flog off empty seats at a deep discount. Can’t be both.

All of the Sofia ->LHR-> Anywhere connections support the direct link between London and Sofia which might not be viable as a point to point route.

They’re having to sell the seats at a steep discount, they’re flogging seats that would otherwise be empty. There’s no impact at all on the viability of the route.

Airline economics means that direct flights are almost always charged at a premium compared to connecting ones.

I know why hidden city ticketing exists, thank you, but that isn’t my point.

Heathrow can’t simultaneously be full to bursting and needing an extra runway and at the same time have Heathrow’s biggest airline dumping its excess capacity at a steep discount. It’s one or the other.

Still waiting for an explanation as to how these transit passengers contribute to the UK economy, btw.

it would also run the risk of reducing and/or eliminating the viability of routes and frequencies from the U.K

Again it can’t be both. They can’t be routes that are essential to the UK’s economic growth and connectivity and simultaneously be routes that only break even by offering steep discounts to foreigners on connecting fares.

 

[AlastairFraser]

That would be the same previous government which decided that the northern leg of HS2 was "not needed".

On the topic of HS2, completing HS2 phase 2b and 2a would put Manchester and Newcastle to Heathrow reliably under 3hrs (change at Old Oak Common onto the HeX). This could help the case for discontinuing BA flights to London from both of those cities significantly, and groups opposed to Heathrow expansion could push for this instead (especially the Greens, now they are pro HS2). You'd need through ticketing, but HeX is already pretty closely connected to Heathrow's operators and HSR through ticketing is not unprecedented.

 

[TravelDream]

I know why hidden city ticketing exists, thank you, but that isn’t my point.

You're missing the point totally. Been told several time, but just don't get it.
Not worth going any further on that.


Just to point out that connecting flights are not 'hidden city ticketing'. They are very standard things. How could I fly London to Chiang Mai or Bucharest to Los Angeles without a connection?

So called 'hidden city ticketing' is when I want to fly New York to London, but book a New York - London - Rome flight ticket as it's cheaper and intend to just not take the last leg.

 

[Bald Rick]

On the topic of HS2, completing HS2 phase 2b and 2a would put Manchester and Newcastle to Heathrow reliably under 3hrs (change at Old Oak Common onto the HeX). This could help the case for discontinuing BA flights to London from both of those cities significantly, and groups opposed to Heathrow expansion could push for this instead (especially the Greens, now they are pro HS2). You'd need through ticketing, but HeX is already pretty closely connected to Heathrow's operators and HSR through ticketing is not unprecedented.

whilst i agree with you, that would free up 30 slots a day. The third runway provides around 700.

 

[Tetchytyke]

London to Buenos Aires might have pretty good demand and yield, but not quite enough for a daily flight.

Of course they can do what Ryanair does, and match price to demand without needing to delve into the nonsense of hidden city ticketing.

when I want to fly New York to London, but book a New York - London - Rome flight ticket as it's cheaper

Bingo.

Now: why is it cheaper? Is it because the airlines through Heathrow have spare capacity they’re trying to dump at a discount? Why, yes it is.

If the planes were full of people paying the higher fare they’d not bother with hidden city ticketing. So, if they’re bothering with hidden city ticketing, it’s because the planes aren’t full. And if the planes aren’t full then Heathrow doesn’t need a third runway.

Of course they dump the capacity on hidden city tickets to prevent the fares on the main leg from dropping. Which is actually worse for the UK, as UK consumers are getting ripped off and are less likely to travel.

Building a third runway to subsidise Bulgarians. It’s certainly a strategy.

 

[camflyer]

Of course they can do what Ryanair does, and match price to demand without needing to delve into the nonsense of hidden city ticketing.

That's the point to point model which is totally different to the hub way of working.

There is very little demand for a Newcastle to Dubai direct service. A long haul version of Ryanair would never operate it. However, turn it into a connection point and then you can get a ticket from Newcastle to any of Emirates destinations. It is that connectivity which means that Newcastle gets access to global destinations and someone from Bangalore or Chiang Mai can easily visit the Toon with an easy connection.

If BA didn't have the connecting passengers to/from Sofia then the Heathrow route wouldn't operate half empty it just wouldn't operate at all making the world a less connected place.

It's like saying some railway lines shouldn't operate as passengers can use an alternate route.

 

[pug1]

Thank you, that has been my point all along. The transfer passengers contribute nothing, they’re simply filling up empty seats.


That has been my point all along. Heathrow is at capacity and needs an extra runway but, at the same time, the airlines are having to flog off empty seats at a deep discount. Can’t be both.


They’re having to sell the seats at a steep discount, they’re flogging seats that would otherwise be empty. There’s no impact at all on the viability of the route.

I know why hidden city ticketing exists, thank you, but that isn’t my point.

Heathrow can’t simultaneously be full to bursting and needing an extra runway and at the same time have Heathrow’s biggest airline dumping its excess capacity at a steep discount. It’s one or the other.

Still waiting for an explanation as to how these transit passengers contribute to the UK economy, btw.


Again it can’t be both. They can’t be routes that are essential to the UK’s economic growth and connectivity and simultaneously be routes that only break even by offering steep discounts to foreigners on connecting fares.

They are filling empty seats to make the route viable so that people in the U.K. can fly to said destination because people in the U.K. alone cannot support such routes on such a large scale, but use them they do. It’s called maximising revenue, not sure if you’re aware of that concept? It’s like saying your favourite Wetherspoons is only viable because it sells food and cheap booze, might as well take away the cheap booze cos it’s too cheap? All those people going in only ordering cheap fizzy brown water not contributing to the economy… The entire point is that LHR is a hub and your argument is therefore completely nonsensical. Have you been on the pub deals yourself again?

 

[AlastairFraser]

whilst i agree with you, that would free up 30 slots a day. The third runway provides around 700.

Then we need to target more destinations with through ticketing. Maybe a Eurostar-HeX based connection with a dedicated bus shuttle between StP and Paddington would work out for Paris/Brussels. And maybe Amsterdam, plus Luxembourg, Dusseldorf and Cologne/Bonn & with some subsidised E* expansion.
This would be a great way to justify increased passenger Eurotunnel use, while reducing the climate impact of some short haul flights.

 

[TravelDream]

Bingo.

Now: why is it cheaper? Is it because the airlines through Heathrow have spare capacity they’re trying to dump at a discount? Why, yes it is.

Well apart from that's not what I wrote....

Then we need to target more destinations with through ticketing. Maybe a Eurostar-HeX based connection with a dedicated bus shuttle between StP and Paddington would work out for Paris/Brussels.

Agreed, it would be a good idea.

But UK rail infrastructure doesn't quite work to do it.

Not many with a big suitcase would choose to go XYZ to St Pancras, and then take a shuttle bus to Paddington, and then to a train to Heathrow. It's difficult - especially for those with mobility issues.
It's one reason why National Express is so popular on airport routes.

 

[tomuk]

Two options
A) Make do and Mend

Expand Heathrow and put up with the environmental effects on London both ongoing long term and short term during construction.

B) New Build

Bring back Cubington or more likely nearer Claydon\Calvert and tie it in with Cambridge Oxford Arc.

New build 4 runway toast rack airport in the gap between MK, Luton Leighton Buzzard, Bicester and Aylesbury to minimise impact on people on the ground.

• Build HS2 junction at Calvert to serve airport station. Junction to allow 4tph Euston to Airport and 4tph from HS2 North to airport. (Option of 6tph Euston with 2tph HS2 north to XC destinations via EWR.)
• Build EWR junction to serve airport.
• Build A421 extension. Oxford Cambridge Expressway linking new airport to M40 and M1 and M11. East West road links
• Build A41(M) extension Aylesbury bypass and Bicester bypass tying into aiport. Additional North South road links
• Build adjoining garden city to share infrastructure.

 

[Cross City]

Good. NIMBYism is a cancer upon this country and history tells us the best way to grow the economy is investing in much needed infrastructure projects.

We missed the boat on high speed rail in the 70s, missed the boat on new airports, missed the boat on regional metro/light rail projects, and missed the boat on motorway building. Time to drag us back into the modern world.

Rip up the green belt, planning and appeals laws and build a five or six of million houses, a couple of airports and a few more HS rail lines.

 

[daodao]

Two options
A) Make do and Mend

Expand Heathrow and put up with the environmental effects on London both ongoing long term and short term during construction.

B) New Build

Bring back Cubington or more likely nearer Claydon\Calvert and tie it in with Cambridge Oxford Arc.

Any option appraisal should always have a status quo option "Do nothing", and possibly another option "Make better use of existing facilities". While a large new airport near Claydon/Calvert might have been preferable, that ship sailed many years ago.

Whilst i agree with you, that would free up 30 slots a day.

If all short distance air services from Edinburgh/Glasgow and Brussels/Paris as well as from Manchester/Newcastle were withdrawn from Heathrow, that should free up well in excess of 30 slots per day.

That's the point to point model which is totally different to the hub way of working.

Ryanair (and Wizzair etc.) have demonstrated that the "point to point" model is the most efficient and cost-effective way of providing air services. Given the lack of practical air connectivity possible in the London area with its multiplicity of airports (6) and of terminals at some of its airports (in particular the 5 serving Heathrow), and the huge obstacles in expanding the already extensive civilian air facilities serving London, are not attempts to promote Heathrow as a "hub" airport unwise? It will always have a limited role as a hub, particularly for services to places in the British Commonwealth and USA.

Good. NIMBYism is a cancer upon this country and history tells us the best way to grow the economy is investing in much needed infrastructure projects.

More and more development in this crowded country really isn't wanted by many of its native inhabitants. The infrastructure projects are only needed to cope with the massive surge in immigration that has occurred in the last 20 years. There are other ways to deal with this pressure rather than building more and more and concreting over the countryside, but that discussion is outwith the scope of this thread.

 

[Cross City]

More and more development in this crowded country really isn't wanted by many of its native inhabitants.

[citation needed]

The infrastructure projects are only needed to cope with the massive surge in immigration that has occurred in the last 20 years.

Cop out excuse. "It's the foreigners fault we didn't build a high speed rail network when we should have in the 80s"

 

[camflyer]

Then we need to target more destinations with through ticketing. Maybe a Eurostar-HeX based connection with a dedicated bus shuttle between StP and Paddington would work out for Paris/Brussels. And maybe Amsterdam, plus Luxembourg, Dusseldorf and Cologne/Bonn & with some subsidised E* expansion.
This would be a great way to justify increased passenger Eurotunnel use, while reducing the climate impact of some short haul flights.

Through ticketing would have to cope with what happens if a rail connection is late or cancelled and a flight is missed. Who would be responsible?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Through ticketing would have to cope with what happens if a rail connection is late or cancelled and a flight is missed. Who would be responsible?

How does this work where "codeshares" with rail already exist? There are quite a few instances of this on the mainland.

 

[camflyer]

How does this work where "codeshares" with rail already exist? There are quite a few instances of this on the mainland.

Good question. No idea. Maybe where it exists (Switzerland?) then trains are so reliable then it isn't an issue.

Ryanair (and Wizzair etc.) have demonstrated that the "point to point" model is the most efficient and cost-effective way of providing air services. Given the lack of practical air connectivity possible in the London area with its multiplicity of airports (6) and of terminals at some of its airports (in particular the 5 serving Heathrow), and the huge obstacles in expanding the already extensive civilian air facilities serving London, are not attempts to promote Heathrow as a "hub" airport unwise? It will always have a limited role as a hub, particularly for services to places in the British Commonwealth and USA.

Point to point may work well for short haul but it doesn't for connecting cities in the Americas to Asia. Much more efficient to have feeders into a few mega hubs then frequent services between them connecting into another network of services.

Even in the short haul market in the US a lot of city to city routes need a connection through a hub as each airline has a few megaconnectors which allows them to serve many more destination pairs.

You could do a Phd and an MBA in airline logistics. They do stuff for a reason and if there was a more efficient way of operating they would do it.

 

[sannox]

Edinburgh to me will require a big terminal extension if passenger numbers keep rising.

Edinburgh Airport is a horrible passenger experience in peak times - like a shopping centre at Christmas. I've ended up flying from Glasgow (if it has the flights) over going there!

 

[Skymonster]

HS2 was shot in the foot as far as air passengers were concerned when the rail industry (acting in its own self interest only) decided it was too costly and it would lengthen journey times too much to include a station at Heathrow. Few air passengers are going to heft themselves and their bags to/from Old Oak while domestic flights exist. There was a golden opportunity: offer through ticketing, protection on later trains / flights should connections be missed, etc. That was all passed up. And now the only way the remaining domestic flights at Heathrow will go away is if its mandated by government.

Those domestic flights are a positive anyway, as they feed UK-originating long haul flights and make them more viable in competition with traffic transferring at Paris, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Munich, Dubai etc. Its just sad that there are far fewer now than there were in the past. A good number of routes were lost as a result of scarcity in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, which made bigger, higher-yielding international routes more financially attractive. The contention that short-haul feed does not support long-haul route development is ridiculous. The wide connecting network (domestic and European short-haul) is an important component of long-haul route viability - its about building critical mass and being able to launch routes that aren’t available from other European hubs, as well as competing with direct point-to-point and other connecting services at those hubs (hence why the EU add-ons are often cheap - to compete). Heathrow needs the short-haul to make some of the long-haul viable, routes that couldn’t be supported by the UK market alone. Its also about serving thin O and Ds over London where the alternative on the continent might be use another mode of transport (e.g. long distance train, motorways) to a major EU airport.

Someone also mentioned Liverpool. Firstly Jet2, Ryanair etc do not have hubs there - they offer services from / to there. To have a hub, you need connectivity between flights and through ticketing, which neither carrier offers. Liverpool is in totally the wrong place for a much up-scaled origin/departure airport because half of its feasible catchment area is unsuitable for residential or business use - its in the Irish Sea (as are big parts of Teesside, Newcastle, etc catchment areas).

People need to get off the question about whether additional pieces of airport expansion make financial sense or not (in isolation). More routes, more connectivity, more choice will always be good for the country and the economy - some major, some minor. The governmental interference / decision should be primarily based on issues such as environment, quality of life for those living near by, etc. Whether it’s financially worthwhile to spend the money to build another runway at a specific airport is an issue for the owners, which make decisions in consort with the airlines that already operate through and those that would serve if more slots were available.

Ryanair (and Wizzair etc.) have demonstrated that the "point to point" model is the most efficient and cost-effective way of providing air services.

No they haven’t. The opposite applies equally: Emirates (and Qatar, etc.) have demonstrated that the most efficient and cost-effective way of providing air services is by using the hub-and-spoke model. Point to point only works in markets that are big enough to support direct services at an adequate frequency - for everything else hubs are needed (whether they are air-to-air hubs or surface/air hubs).

 

[Tetchytyke]

They are filling empty seats to make the route viable so that people in the U.K. can fly to said destination because people in the U.K. alone cannot support such routes on such a large scale

They’re doing hidden city ticketing so they can fill the empty seats without affecting the headline fare from Heathrow. I get why they do this from a commercial perspective, but it’s simply not true to say that the ex-EU fares are to fill seats that wouldn’t be sold in the UK and it’s really not true to say that these routes would be marginal without the hidden city ticketing.

Simple fact is that if airlines are having to dump unsold capacity then Heathrow doesn’t need expanding. Sell what you have now before wanting more.

 

[Bald Rick]

If all short distance air services from Edinburgh/Glasgow and Brussels/Paris as well as from Manchester/Newcastle were withdrawn from Heathrow, that should free up well in excess of 30 slots per day.

yep, about 130 (short haul slots). fewer if long haul. maybe 15-20% of the capacity of the third runway.

 

[The exile]

Ryanair (and Wizzair etc.) have demonstrated that the "point to point" model is the most efficient and cost-effective way of providing air services.

Only for that part of the market which can tailor date and destination to what an airline deigns to provide (ie the leisure market), in the same way that a coach “mystery excursion” is likely to be much more “efficient” than a regular bus link.

 

[pug1]

They’re doing hidden city ticketing so they can fill the empty seats without affecting the headline fare from Heathrow. I get why they do this from a commercial perspective, but it’s simply not true to say that the ex-EU fares are to fill seats that wouldn’t be sold in the UK and it’s really not true to say that these routes would be marginal without the hidden city ticketing.

Simple fact is that if airlines are having to dump unsold capacity then Heathrow doesn’t need expanding. Sell what you have now before wanting more.

No you are once again choosing to ignore a vital piece of information. The airport is a hub, it builds critical mass via interlining. Just simply offering cut priced fares from LHR to one single destination wouldn’t work, feeder flights do not just feed on to one other flight but an entire network of them. It is entirely true that a crucial part of the demand comes from interlining and would not be made up for by offering cheaper point to point tickets. So you are completely wrong to take your argument down that avenue.

You clearly take issue with the idea of a hub and spoke business model, but that’s irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[Meerkat]

This is PRIVATE investment.

Is it all funded privately, including shifting the M25 etc?

Why buy a house/ move near an airport and then complain about the noise?

An awful lot of people won’t have moved there - they will have been born there.

Expanding Heathrow is a ludicrous suggestion - the infrastructure just can’t cope, particularly the M25
The Gatwick expansion makes far more sense as it affects a lot fewer people.

 

[jojoseph72]

Is it all funded privately, including shifting the M25 etc?

IIRC all aspects of the Heathrow expansion would be privately funded.

 

[camflyer]

Is it all funded privately, including shifting the M25 etc?

Unlikely that it will be 100% privately funded some some public money will be required but there are plenty of precedents for private developments paying for changes to local road (and other) infrastructure.

 

[Meerkat]

IIRC all aspects of the Heathrow expansion would be privately funded.

Heathrow third runway: public bill up to £10bn hidden, says Tory MP

Former transport minister Stephen Hammond urges government to ‘come clean’ over probable bill to taxpayers

www.theguardian.com

While the commission report estimated a £5bn bill for new roads and rail links, Transport for London put the potential cost as being as high as £18.4bn.

Heathrow said it had earmarked just £1bn, and that it only accepted direct responsibility for works to the M25, which the third runway would cross, and a few minor roads.

 

[Skymonster]

They’re doing hidden city ticketing so they can fill the empty seats without affecting the headline fare from Heathrow. I get why they do this from a commercial perspective, but it’s simply not true to say that the ex-EU fares are to fill seats that wouldn’t be sold in the UK and it’s really not true to say that these routes would be marginal without the hidden city ticketing.

Simple fact is that if airlines are having to dump unsold capacity then Heathrow doesn’t need expanding. Sell what you have now before wanting more.

Any airline can fill aircraft going almost anywhere if the price is low enough (Ryanair, cough, cough). But to fill long thin routes at a price that anyone would accept sometimes requires connections / interline, because UK O&D traffic is insufficient to get a worthwhile yield, even using today’s efficient, smaller long-haul jets. British Airways and Heathrow is competing with Air France and Paris, KLM and Amsterdam, Lufthansa and Frankfurt / Munich, etc. You can‘t charge a connecting passenger the sum of the short and long haul fares because you’d be uncompetitive, especially where alternative direct services are available from other hubs. No airline deliberately goes out of its way to sell seats, even connections, at a fare that is unsustainable. - if they appear to discount (and I’m not even sure that’s the right word when it comes to connections), they do it to increase load factors at a level that supports O&D revenue. Capacity isn’t being dumped, its being sold at a fare that attracts business outside the home market to support certain routes.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Agreed, it would be a good idea.

But UK rail infrastructure doesn't quite work to do it.

Not many with a big suitcase would choose to go XYZ to St Pancras, and then take a shuttle bus to Paddington, and then to a train to Heathrow. It's difficult - especially for those with mobility issues.
It's one reason why National Express is so popular on airport routes.

Choose? Maybe not, but, remember, even if this scheme was in place and BA flights got cut, most of the major destinations you would cut with the E*/shuttle/HeX combination would still have direct flights to Heathrow you could still use (Air France from Paris CDG, Brussels Airlines from Brussels, KLM from Amsterdam, plus Luxair with the London City link - that's not direct of course, but an air option to London is still there).

Through ticketing would have to cope with what happens if a rail connection is late or cancelled and a flight is missed. Who would be responsible?

Whoever they purchased the ticket from (most likely the airline), who could then claw back compensation from the railway company, if a railway company caused the problem.