Heathrow Expansion

[SHMD]

Even I, as a land lubber, was taught about the importance/significance of the "Plimsoll line" as a kid.

 

 

Kev.

(Planning decisions, politician's promises, and decades passing mean NOTHING as todays politician(s) did not break any promises in allowing further development to go on...)

 

((I use planes a lot, and there are some very sensible arguments being put forward here.))

 

 

.

[jjb1970]

I'd much rather fly in the B787 than the A380 as I find it a nicer aircraft to travel in.

[Ron Ron Ron]

....A fast transit from Old Oak Common to each terminal would surely be a better idea?

 

 

Which is what is planned, if not exactly super fast.

The Elizabeth Line will provide that link and if the faster HEX survives post 2028, then it's quite likely it will also call at OOC.

 

Incidentally, the final stage of public consultation on the Western Rail link, is due to end in two weeks, this Friday (22nd June).

 

The SoS is supposed to be reviewing the plan following this and if given the go ahead, which is IMHO very likely in view of the governments go ahead for R3 and its commitment to promote public transport links - CO₂/NOx reduction or whatever), the formal planning application is currently scheduled to be submitted towards the end of this year.

 

Construction of this rail link could commence sometime next year, or early 2020.

 

 

.

.

[SHMD]

The 787 and the 380 are both VERY nice aircraft.

I have travelled in both (quite a few times) in cattle_class/economy and it was much better than then the 737/747/757/319/320/321s.

I have also travelled business in both a 787 and a 380 in the last 7 weeks - long haul. The 380 was more stable (not by much) and the 787 had better windows (not by much)!

 

 

Kev.

(..who is currently in Toulouse with his desk within 75ft of a (big) section of 380 fuselage under test...)

[Clearwater]

A few years ago when the "open skies" agreement came into effect, airlines that had hitherto been unable to land at Heathrow were able to move their services there. A lot took the opportuntiy afforded by the overall fall in passenger numbers in 2008/09 to move services from Gatwick to Heathrow, particularly for transatlantic services. If you look at the PAX statistics, Gatwick (and Stansted) have very marked falls (10-15%) whereas Heathrow numbers only declined by a percent or so. This switch in preference from the airlines to Heathrow was despite Heathrow's landing charges being higher than those at Gatwick or Stansted. The switch was being driven by airlines being able to increase their overall yield relative to those other UK destinations. That airline yields are higher is one of the underlying drivers as to why expansion at Heathrow is favoured over elsewhere.

 

ADB makes a similar point around the frequency vs yield debate. If you have say 400 passenger capacity on an aircraft, an economy ticket at £200 contributes £0.5 to the overall yield/theoretical capacity. If you can sell business tickets at say £1000, the contribution is £2.5. Therefore selling just a few extra business and first tickets can compensate for a slightly emptier overall airplane. There are other sub debates on 777 vs 380 such as loading/unloading times and the need for extra landslide infrastructure to best accommodate them.

 

Stansted provides an interesting counterpoint to the debate around whether the UK should have multiple hubs. It was built to accommodate long haul flights and hence was somewhat overspecified in terms of its passenger transit system and baggage handling system relative to the low cost base it has successfully become. Again, with a cheaper alternative, airlines chose the more expensive Heathrow. I suspect even today Stansted has capacity to take more long haul flights but finds little appetite from airlines to take slots.

 

In one of its many iterations, BA tried a "twin hub" strategy treating both Heathrow and Gatwick as hubs. That wasn't successful and duplicated cost. Hence their ultimate decision to consolidate at Heathrow.

 

All in all, I can see little alternative to Heathrow expansion. Let's not forget that under Sir Howard Davies, an extensive process considering all the facts with detailed testimony from airlines, airports, users and numerous experts considered the issues of where to expand UK airport capacity. They concluded Heathrow.

[jjb1970]

My favourite wide body was the 767, basically because it combined the feeling of space of a wide body but without being very big. In economy there was much less chance of getting a centre seat and in business class it was pretty much matched much larger aircraft. However it is rare for me to fly on a 767 these days and over the last 15 years I think I've only made a couple of 767 flights. One was a very packed economy flight between Tokyo Haneda and Takamatsu with ANA and the other a really very civilised return flight London - Houston in business class with Delta. I used to fly the BA 767's regularly on a variety of routes.

[Legend]

I went from LHR to EDI last week on a 767 . Agreed nice aircraft , but showing their age now .

[Zomboid]

It would have to be a jolly big floating airport; at 20 000 ft the landing and take off ground speeds would be enormous. In fact I doubt if you'd be able to even get to take-off speed. (ground speed and air speed are very different and even in still air get a lot more different as altitude increases)

take off would be easy, just use free fall to get up to speed. And land using a carrier style tripwire.

[Fenman]

Re your point on frequencies , I don’t think you are correct. In fact it costs more in landing charges, crew fuel etc to fly 2 777s instead of one A380. The point is that the customer requires high frequency during the day and not to be herded on a few large capacity flights at a time suitable to the airline. And if Heathrow can’t provide it, Schipol ,Frankfurt and Paris certainly can . This is why A380s are struggling to get more orders in comparison to Boeing 787, 777, Airbus A330neo and Airbus A350 . The customer wants high frequencies and to go when suits him or her

 

 

Taking Friday 29 June as a random date, Google dlights shows twenty departures from Heathrow to JFK (so we're ignoring all those other flights involving Newark and/or Gatwick).

 

What sane businessperson is going to say that if there are "only" 15 flights on that day (each operated by a much bigger aircraft) that there is insufficient choice? On one pair of flights (AA and BA, who operate a joint venture on this route), there are two departures within 5 minutes of each other.

 

It's all very well you to look at this from the perspective of the airlines and the aiports, and conclude that the only solution is to increase runway capacity. But the airlines and the airports need to work as part of a larger society, and their interests need to be balajced against everyone else's (including mine, as a businessman, who needs to travel).

 

The airports have poured so much money into lobbying and advertising that everyone seems to assume that Heathrow is "full" and, of course, we therefore "need" more capacity. I'm not sure that's right.

 

Incidentally, Heathrow has really low landing charges - the regulator is effective and forced reductions year after year. It's now cheaper than many other places which you would imagine are much less popular. So, bizarrely, airlines are finamcially incentivised to fly from there. 

 

Paul

[2mmMark]

There are currently only 4 terminals at Heathrow. T2, 3, 4 & 5

The old Terminal 1 shut a few years ago and is slowly being emptied and demolished in sections.

 

Terminal 2 is a large brand new terminal (the much smaller old T2 was demolished to make way for it).

However, the new T2 is to be extended to almost double its current size, once the old T1 is finally cleared away.

This will pave the way for T3 to be eventually demolished, leaving the much enlarged T2 as the only terminal in the central area.

 

This will leave 3 terminals, currently named T2, 4 & 5.

For a time the proposed final T2 arrangement was named Heathrow East, with T5 re-named Heathrow West.

 

 

HAL's current proposal for R3 includes a new large terminal facility, which at times has been given the working title, Terminal 6.

This terminal will be built back-to-back with T5, between that terminal and the M25 motorway.

The proposal is that T5 & 6 will be connected together to form a large terminal hub.

 

Some aircraft parking stands will be co-located with T6, but the bulk of them are to be located on a terminal satellite complex, between the new runway and the current northern runway (09L/27R); connected to T6 by high speed transit link.

 

If all these plans come to fruition, then there will be 2 large terminal complexes (west and east), which leaves the question of whether there will be any future for T4..

 

Odd how the historical terminal numbering persist despite radical changes. Each of them had their operating quirks and foibles.  T1 had to be closed by order of the Fire Service on several occasions as it was prone to becoming dangerously overcrowded. One time was on the Friday evening just before Whitsun week. The knock-on effects of that lasted most of the weekend.

 

The old T2 allegedly used the carcass of what was going to be a multi-storey car park. It was a strange building, always felt a bit cramped once past check-in.

 

Under the fascia of T3, it's still the old "Oceanic" terminal of the 1950s.

 

T4 made people walk a long way to some stands (The "Victor" pier). We once got a feedback form saying the flight was nice but why did they have to go to Maidenhead to get it.

 

T5 was an intimate part of my life for several years leading up to the opening. I was design lead for BA's control centre, which we opened in January, which allowed us to thoroughly debug it well before the notorious opening day. I wonder if my emergency fix to the network cabling is still in the switch room.

[Ron Ron Ron]

....A lot took the opportuntiy afforded by the overall fall in passenger numbers in 2008/09 to move services from Gatwick to Heathrow, particularly for transatlantic services.

If you look at the PAX statistics, Gatwick (and Stansted) have very marked falls (10-15%) whereas Heathrow numbers only declined by a percent or so.

 

Notwithstanding the impact of the Open skies agreement, the falls in passenger numbers at Gatwick and Stansted in 2008/09 are entirely consistent with similar falls in passenger numbers at other UK airports and many European mainland and major North American airports.

 

For example Manchester went down from around 22 million pax per annum, pre-crash to around 18m p.p.a. post crash; recovering back to the pre=crash figures within 3 or 4 years.

In 2017 Manchester had risen to 28 million p.p.a.

 

 

In one of its many iterations, BA tried a "twin hub" strategy treating both Heathrow and Gatwick as hubs. That wasn't successful and duplicated cost. Hence their ultimate decision to consolidate at Heathrow.

 

BA have since gone on to re-grow their Gatwick operation.

They've built up a sizeable long-haul network from there and continue to operate European flights.

 

 

All in all, I can see little alternative to Heathrow expansion. Let's not forget that under Sir Howard Davies, an extensive process considering all the facts with detailed testimony from airlines, airports, users and numerous experts considered the issues of where to expand UK airport capacity. They concluded Heathrow.

Whilst not disagreeing with Howard Davies main conclusion, much of the data, evidence and conclusions from his committee's report is significantly flawed.

For example, his analysis of Gatwick's fortunes are basically laughable.

 

The passenger traffic numbers his team predicted for Gatwick by 2030, were passed last year (2017) !!!!!

 

The report stated that the scope for long-haul operations from Gatwick was minimal and cited only X long haul services/destinations served (I can't remember without fishing out the final report) at that time, with a prediction of only Y long haul services/destinations served by year dot (again I can't remember off hand but it was 10, 15 or more years away).

In fact by the time the report came out, there were double the number of such long-haul routes being served and since then it has again gone up with increased frequencies too.

 

As a forum devoted to matters of a railway nature, it might be of interest that the DafT provided a large amount of the analysis used.

Mmmmm?

 

 

 

.

[Clearwater]

Notwithstanding the impact of the Open skies agreement, the falls in passenger numbers at Gatwick and Stansted in 2008/09 are entirely consistent with similar falls in passenger numbers at other UK airports and many European mainland and major North American airports.

 

For example Manchester went down from around 22 million pax per annum, pre-crash to around 18m p.p.a. post crash; recovering back to the pre=crash figures within 3 or 4 years.

In 2017 Manchester had risen to 28 million p.p.a.

 

 

 

 

BA have since gone on to re-grow their Gatwick operation.

They've built up a sizeable long-haul network from there and continue to operate European flights.

 

 

 

Whilst not disagreeing with Howard Davies main conclusion, much of the data, evidence and conclusions from his committee's report is significantly flawed.

For example, his analysis of Gatwick's fortunes are basically laughable.

 

The passenger traffic numbers his team predicted for Gatwick by 2030, were passed last year (2017) !!!!!

 

The report stated that the scope for long-haul operations from Gatwick was minimal and cited only X long haul services/destinations served (I can't remember without fishing out the final report) at that time, with a prediction of only Y long haul services/destinations served by year dot (again I can't remember off hand but it was 10, 15 or more years away).

In fact by the time the report came out, there were double the number of such long-haul routes being served and since then it has again gone up with increased frequencies too.

 

As a forum devoted to matters of a railway nature, it might be of interest that the DafT provided a large amount of the analysis used.

Mmmmm?

 

 

.

Re passenger numbers, I agree the fall was similar at other UK airports. My point is that the fall was smaller at Heathrow- in a shrinking market, it managed to grow market share at the expense of its cheaper rivals. It's demand is relatively inelastic compared to other UK airports.

 

On growth and rebounding, I entirely agree that the numbers at most airports are back to pre crash levels. If you look at long term passenger statistics, you barely notice what at the time were catastrophic events - eg 9/11, SARS, the Icelandic volcano, various economic shocks. From what I've gleaned from the various transactions / projects I've worked on in the airport sector, capacity fills first at Heathrow and then spills over to Gatwick. If BA can't expand at Heathrow, then they're pretty much left with little choice but to go to Gatwick. Question is what would/will happen when the new runway is built and there is again spare capacity at Heathrow? I'd also note that BA takes every opportunity it can to buy extra slots as and when they become available at Heathrow.

 

Gatwick's owners have done a phenomemal job. Expect to see Gatwick sold within a couple of years for a very healthy profit for GIP. I don't doubt Davies' report was wrong in aspects. Every traffic forecast I've ever seen (road, rail, sea, air, tram, bridge, ferry) has been wrong. its a pretty thankless task being asked to call the future in such a precise way against what is a fairly dynamic market.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Odd how the historical terminal numbering persist despite radical changes. 

The old T2 allegedly used the carcass of what was going to be a multi-storey car park. It was a strange building, always felt a bit cramped once past check-in.

 

 

It is rather odd that they've kept the terminal numbering, but in light of how things have panned out up to now, the right time to rename the terminals probably hasn't arrived yet.

I'm sure it will happen at some point.

 

Incidentally, the new T2 is called "The Queen's Terminal". Not that anyone uses that name.

 

As for the origins of the old T2 (formerly called the Europa Building), it was designed as the airports first proper passenger terminal and opened along with the adjacent Queens Building in 1955.

The multi-story car park thing can be filed under "urban myth".

 

 

.

[adb968008]

The 787 and the 380 are both VERY nice aircraft.

I have travelled in both (quite a few times) in cattle_class/economy and it was much better than then the 737/747/757/319/320/321s.

I have also travelled business in both a 787 and a 380 in the last 7 weeks - long haul. The 380 was more stable (not by much) and the 787 had better windows (not by much)!

 

 

Kev.

(..who is currently in Toulouse with his desk within 75ft of a (big) section of 380 fuselage under test...)

Don’t forget the new 737Max, inside it’s like a Dreamliner, massive overhead bins, LED lighting etc etc. For a short haul it’s luxury.

[adb968008]

Taking Friday 29 June as a random date, Google dlights shows twenty departures from Heathrow to JFK (so we're ignoring all those other flights involving Newark and/or Gatwick).

 

What sane businessperson is going to say that if there are "only" 15 flights on that day (each operated by a much bigger aircraft) that there is insufficient choice? On one pair of flights (AA and BA, who operate a joint venture on this route), there are two departures within 5 minutes of each other.

 

It's all very well you to look at this from the perspective of the airlines and the aiports, and conclude that the only solution is to increase runway capacity. But the airlines and the airports need to work as part of a larger society, and their interests need to be balajced against everyone else's (including mine, as a businessman, who needs to travel).

 

The airports have poured so much money into lobbying and advertising that everyone seems to assume that Heathrow is "full" and, of course, we therefore "need" more capacity. I'm not sure that's right.

 

Incidentally, Heathrow has really low landing charges - the regulator is effective and forced reductions year after year. It's now cheaper than many other places which you would imagine are much less popular. So, bizarrely, airlines are finamcially incentivised to fly from there.

 

Paul

You quote JFK, but ignore the other major airport in NYC. Newark is the opposite model of the UK.

Whilst BA obsesses on JFK as a single trunk route to NYC, with a few flights to Boston, PHL, EWR etc, United has gone for scattergun effect from EWR in the UK, by using its 757’s on Bristol, EDI, GLA, MAN, BHX etc etc and very successful it’s been.

 

Those routes are higher yield cause they offer non-connecting regional flights to NYC, but also provide a nationwide feed to the entire USA.

 

In short BA makes money flying from Europe via London to NYC, United makes money from flying all across Europe to all across the US., using a smaller plane too.

 

BA has steadily increased its LHR- JFK routes over the years, considering a 747 will burn $100k of fuel, you don’t make that decision unless you can fill the plane so 10 flights is pretty good going, they own this route, everyone else is a minor player.

But when it comes to the rest of the UK to NYC United owns it.

 

As an FYI, I’ve 930k actual flight miles on United’s own flights (not partners etc, which takes to 1.5mn in star alliance) and Zero on BA, given I fly anything upto 6 flights a week some weeks, and virtually exclusively use LHR, that says much for my opinions of BA (though I have 200k flown miles with One world).

 

However if LHR was split into some several London minor airports, chances are my job would move to Amsterdam, which is set up very well to handle it.

Whilst people worry everything will move to FRA , the airport is as much of a mess as is LHR, coupled with Lufthansa multi-hub set up with Munich (and Berlin BBI if it ever makes it), German flight connections are just not as wide ranging as LHR... the options aren’t there.

Similarly CDG is well set for Air France but again the options arent there.. LHR doesn’t just fly to JFK, there are 5 - 10 a day to places like Singapore, Hong Kong, San Francisco, Dubai etc... Short haul even more.. KLM has a nearly hourly shuttle at night to AMS... so does BA, KLM will even use a large wide body on its early (9 am) to LHR shuttling in its long haul connections for a 9am arrival in London.

 

At the end of the day no airport today offers what LHR does... I know I’ve flown to over 70 countries from there, and some countries I’ve travelled more than 70 times... Stansted, Luton ain’t cut for it..

The only replacement for LHR is a 100% replacement of it.

 

The closest comparison I could give to LHR would be Hong Kong, and probably Atlanta.

The sheer size and volumes of EWR and JFK shows how impractical that model would be in the UK, both are massive, but connecting between the two (or LGA) isn’t an option for passengers in the US and demonstrates why it wouldn’t work over here, the airlines know this, which is why UA concentrate on EWR whilst AA concentrates in JFK.

Edited June 6, 2018 by adb968008

[Ron Ron Ron]

Re passenger numbers, I agree the fall was similar at other UK airports. My point is that the fall was smaller at Heathrow- in a shrinking market, it managed to grow market share at the expense of its cheaper rivals. It's demand is relatively inelastic compared to other UK airports....

 

It is true that Heathrow saw little impact from the post 2008 recession.

A large part of its resilience is due to the unsatisfied, pent up demand to add extra services due to the lack of spare capacity. 

 

 

On growth and rebounding, I entirely agree that the numbers at most airports are back to pre crash levels....

 

The numbers were back to pre-crash levels within only a few years (2011, 2012, 2013 for most airports).

Since then the growth has been at a much higher rate than at any previous time.

e.g. The 2nd and 3rd busiest UK airport's passenger numbers, Gatwick and Manchester, have each grown by 30% , as have those for airports like Birmingham.

 

 

.....in the airport sector, capacity fills first at Heathrow and then spills over to Gatwick...

 

If you don't mind me saying so, that's rather simplistic and in some ways rather inaccurate.

The core of both airports business has always been quite different.

Gatwick was for the first 30 to 40 years (from 1958) predominantly catering for the leisure market. Charter flights and inclusive tour operations accounted for up to some 80-90% of its business.

 

In more recent times, Gatwick has become home to a very large number of low-cost flights.

The low cost phenomena isn't the result of overspill from Heathrow.

It's part a newly developed market (new travel opportunities), part replacement for the old inclusive tour business (package tour holidays) and part nicking passengers from the former "full fare" airlines.

 

 

If BA can't expand at Heathrow, then they're pretty much left with little choice but to go to Gatwick. Question is what would/will happen when the new runway is built and there is again spare capacity at Heathrow? I'd also note that BA takes every opportunity it can to buy extra slots as and when they become available at Heathrow...

 

It's true that if BA could consolidate all of its Gatwick operation at Heathrow, it probably would.

Their more recent increases in Gatwick services, notably the new long haul routes, are no doubt as a result in the lack of capacity at Heathrow.

As well as the unavailability of airport "slots", BA's T5 at Heathrow is full and overflowing and they are having to operate a significant number of flights from T3 as well.

 

If R3 and the new terminal do get built (the government's go ahead having now been given), then BA should be able to reconsolidate all its Heathrow flights at T5 and possibly the attached T6.

I've no doubt most if not all of their Gatwick services will follow.

However, there are supposed to be constraints being put into place to allow more competition and prevent total dominance, but to what degree that will impact BA, I've no idea.

 

 

.....Every traffic forecast I've ever seen (road, rail, sea, air, tram, bridge, ferry) has been wrong. its a pretty thankless task being asked to call the future in such a precise way against what is a fairly dynamic market.

Indeed, but in this case, the Davies commission was way off the mark as they were deliberating.

Never mind getting the future wrong, they got the present day wrong too.

 

 

.

[57xx]

"North-West of London"? Where abouts are you thinking there? Inside the M25, maybe demolish Rickmansworth? Or were you thinking outside of the M25 and squashing it between your Chalfonts?

[adb968008]

Gatwick serves Leisure, Budget and airlines / routes that don’t fit at LHR.

It too is over busy, especially in the summer.

 

The crucial difference is EasyJet / Ryanair / Norwegian flights don’t have business class seats which can yield £3000-5000 per passenger unlike LHR.

Edited June 6, 2018 by adb968008

[Ron Ron Ron]

In short BA makes money flying from Europe via London to NYC, United makes money from flying all across Europe to all across the US., using a smaller plane too.

 

 

But when it comes to the rest of the UK to NYC United owns it.

 

 

United also use a lot of large aircraft between European airports and the US.

 

On Manchester - NYC they compete with Virgin (B747's) and Thomas Cook Airlines (A330's), - both operating to JFK rather than EWR - who have built up quite a number of transatlantic services operating out of Manchester.

 

 

 

...

[adb968008]

United also use a lot of large aircraft between European airports and the US.

 

On Manchester - NYC they compete with Virgin (B747's) and Thomas Cook Airlines (A330's), - both operating to JFK rather than EWR - who have built up quite a number of transatlantic services operating out of Manchester.

 

 

 

...

Not any more.

The UA 747s are gone, thank god.

777’s are usually used on Europe- West Coast - Asia services.

They used to use 777 on EWR- LHR but of late I’ve seen that contracted...they are beaten by BA in this route.

 

There are some 777’s in Europe but East coast routes are usually 757 (to the western edges and 767’s to Central Europe). 787’s I’ve seen from Houston and Chicago to Europe, not had / seen a 787 from EWR to Europe yet.

I Appreciate exceptions apply to my generalisation, but EWR (my comparison) is pretty much a nest of 757/767 to Europe.

 

I do think BA and UA share the same problem though... the planes are getting old for The UK-NYC routes , they are mostly like company owned and unmortgaged at this point. it’ll cost both a fortune to replace them, will BA upscale LHR to JFK with A380’s or contract to 787s ? Similarly will UA remain viable from EWR to regional UK cities with 787’s ?

 

I think the answer is no to both.

Edited June 6, 2018 by adb968008

[Ron Ron Ron]

Gatwick serves Leisure, Budget and airlines / routes that don’t fit at LHR.......

 

The respective airports declare in their own figures....

 

Heathrow 33% are business passengers

Gatwick 17% are business passengers.

 

Both are predominately catering for leisure and visiting friends and relations traffic.

 

Yields are another matter.

 

 

.

[adb968008]

The respective airports declare in their own figures....

 

Heathrow 33% are business passengers

Gatwick 17% are business passengers.

 

Both are predominately catering for leisure and visiting friends and relations traffic.

 

Yields are another matter.

 

 

.

Completely agree, I am in those statistics. I live 30 mins fro Gatwick, most expensive fare I’ve paid is about £500, and for business I can count my usage in single figures this year. I live 45 mins from LHR and have probably spent in excess of £15k in European air travel expenses this year there, indeed I flew 4 times just last week from LHR, and just stayed at the Skyline ( really good pool /cocktail bar) rather than going home in rush hour Tuesday only to return at 6am last Wednesday.

 

Like it or not LHR just has the connections people need.

Edited June 6, 2018 by adb968008

[Dave47549]

.

Edited October 1, 2021 by Dave47549
Removed pointless guff

[Clearwater]

It is true that Heathrow saw little impact from the post 2008 recession.

A large part of its resilience is due to the unsatisfied, pent up demand to add extra services due to the lack of spare capacity. 

 

 

 

 

The numbers were back to pre-crash levels within only a few years (2011, 2012, 2013 for most airports).

Since then the growth has been at a much higher rate than at any previous time.

e.g. The 2nd and 3rd busiest UK airport's passenger numbers, Gatwick and Manchester, have each grown by 30% , as have those for airports like Birmingham.

 

 

 

 

If you don't mind me saying so, that's rather simplistic and in some ways rather inaccurate.

The core of both airports business has always been quite different.

Gatwick was for the first 30 to 40 years (from 1958) predominantly catering for the leisure market. Charter flights and inclusive tour operations accounted for up to some 80-90% of its business.

 

In more recent times, Gatwick has become home to a very large number of low-cost flights.

The low cost phenomena isn't the result of overspill from Heathrow.

It's part a newly developed market (new travel opportunities), part replacement for the old inclusive tour business (package tour holidays) and part nicking passengers from the former "full fare" airlines.

 

 

 

 

It's true that if BA could consolidate all of its Gatwick operation at Heathrow, it probably would.

Their more recent increases in Gatwick services, notably the new long haul routes, are no doubt as a result in the lack of capacity at Heathrow.

As well as the unavailability of airport "slots", BA's T5 at Heathrow is full and overflowing and they are having to operate a significant number of flights from T3 as well.

 

If R3 and the new terminal do get built (the government's go ahead having now been given), then BA should be able to reconsolidate all its Heathrow flights at T5 and possibly the attached T6.

I've no doubt most if not all of their Gatwick services will follow.

However, there are supposed to be constraints being put into place to allow more competition and prevent total dominance, but to what degree that will impact BA, I've no idea.

 

 

Indeed, but in this case, the Davies commission was way off the mark as they were deliberating.

Never mind getting the future wrong, they got the present day wrong too.

 

 

.

I'm fully aware that there are some major simplifications made in a ten line forum post on a complex economic eco system that warrants a 100+ page professional report. Hence I acknowledge my "overspill" statement is a glib simplification. However, without going into the myriad changes to the market, I still think that in terms of assessing where to put material extra capacity, the performance of Heathrow in the recession and its ability to attract airlines when the market was shrinking is more significant than the growth seen elsewhere post recession. The recovery rates and strong growth highlight the increased propensity, availability, affordability of travel coupled to underlying population growth (both in the UK and overseas). I'm going to be an interested observer as to what happens post Brexit to the UK/Europe flight market.

 

Your statement re BA is, in part, what I mean by overspill - if they could, they would solely operate at Heathrow albeit I agree with your point on competition at Heathrow. As an aside, one of the objectives of the splitting up of the BAA assets was to increase competition between them. A moot point given the lack of capacity. The argument is complicated by what has overspilled to other London assets that could be served from Heathrow potentially freeing slots for other lower yielding services from those assets, what has overspilled to competing European hubs and what services have simply not occurred because the operator only wishes to serve Heathrow.

 

As I see it, if Heathrow is demand constrained, then growth in the system as a whole is going to have to cause higher growth rates at other assets. Illustrating with simple numbers if there are 100 flights in the UK and the UK market grows by 3% to 103 but asset A with 50 flights can only grow to 51, then the other assets must grow by 2 flights to 52. A growth rate of 4% at those assets compared to the 2% at Asset A. It's the converse of the effect shown in the recession with greater falls at such assets. The next tier of airports down suffered even more greatly, Stansted's fall and subsequent growth has been at a higher rate if I recall correctly (don't have access to the figures at present) to the extent that some ceased passenger operations (eg Coventry). This is why the credit agencies and investors assign a lower credit rating and a higher equity risk to second and third tier airports - they have greater volatility. If you're valuing those assets, you should assign a higher cost of capital than for Heathrow.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Not any more.

The UA 747s are gone, thank god.

777’s are usually used on Europe- West Coast - Asia services.

They used to use 777 on EWR- LHR but of late I’ve seen that contracted...they are beaten by BA in this route.

 

There are some 777’s in Europe but East coast routes are usually 757 (to the western edges and 767’s to Central Europe). 787’s I’ve seen from Houston and Chicago to Europe, not had / seen a 787 from EWR to Europe yet.

I Appreciate exceptions apply to my generalisation, but EWR (my comparison) is pretty much a nest of 757/767 to Europe.

 

From the 1990's UA's 747's were only ever used on a small number of trans Atlantic services, being mostly used on trans Pacific services.

Today 777's and 767's still dominate on their flights to/from Europe, with a smaller number of 757's employed on thinner routes.

 

 

 

...will BA upscale LHR to JFK with A380’s or contract to 787s ?

 

BA have only 12 A380's and recently had the opportunity to take on a couple more from Singapore Airlines, who are now replacing some of their own A380 fleet with smaller A350's.

BA considered it but decided not to increase the size of their present A380 fleet. 

 

Although some of the earliest ones have gone to the desert, they still have a sizeable fleet of 747-400's, but these are now very old and will be retired in a few years time.

They have a large fleet of A350's on order, which will in part replace the 747's.

The 787's are smaller and have replaced most of the BA fleet of 767's, of which only a small handful have been retained for use on European and domestic routes.

 

 

.