Airport expansions

[camflyer]

Will the profit from this go overseas, such as to the Spanish owners of Heathrow?

Ferrovial of Spain has sold selling their holding in Heathrow to a combination of the Saudi wealth fund and French private equity

Saudi Arabia’s wealth fund takes 10% stake in Heathrow airport

Spanish firm Ferrovial sells off holding after 17 years, with other 15% going to French group Ardian

www.theguardian.com

Coincidentally, Saudi are launching a new airline with the plan to take on the likes of Emirates and Qatar. They will want landing slots at Heathrow and lots of them.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Cublington to the west of Leighton Buzard was the 1960s choice for a new airport, to be served by a spur off the WCML. Today it could be served by a spur off HS2. Heathrow was the wrong choice in 1946, but it had to be quickly established because the runways at Croydon were too short, with no hope of expansion.

 

[camflyer]

The best time to do this was 30 years ago, the second best time is today.

The Heathrow expansion, even if Reeves forces it through, will take a very long time to build. The projections from last time people tried to force this were 20-30 years.
It requires massively disruptive work on the motorway system near Heathrow that will itself generate major externalities.

Starting with a clean sheet at a greenfield site will not be that much slower.

Gatwick suffers in comparison to Heathrow by not being Heathrow - spreading out airport capacity over multiple airports has been a major reason that London's position as an aviation travel hub is fading away.

People in the area may complain about Heathrow but what would the local economy be like without it? Countless businesses are based in Hownslow, Uxbridge and the M4 corridor because of the airport. Reading is full of tech firms as their people can get flights around the world from their doorstep

Put a new super hub airport in the Kent countryside and it will be miles away from anyone to work there, will needs tens of billions spent on new road and rail links and it will devastate the economy of west London and its hinterland.

Sorry, but I think the time for a new greenfield site has gone and the costs of an airport in the Thames estuary doesn't bear thinking about. Just need to accept that while it may not be in the best place, it is where it is and like all legacy transport infrastructure in this country we just have to make the most of it and mitigate any problems as much as possible.

 

[HSTEd]

People in the area may complain about Heathrow but what would the local economy be like without it? Countless businesses are based in Hownslow, Uxbridge and the M4 corridor because of the airport. Reading is full of tech firms as their people can get flights around the world from their doorstep

It would remain a highly dynamic area of the economy by virtue of close proximity to London.
Especially when Heathrow is redeveloped to be a new high density urban area with a large population.

Sorry, but I think the time for a new greenfield site has gone and the costs of an airport in the Thames estuary doesn't bear thinking about. Just need to accept that while it may not be in the best place, it is where it is and like all legacy transport infrastructure in this country we just have to make the most of it and mitigate any problems as much as possible.

The problem is the only way to mitigate the impact of Heathrow is to reduce the number of flights - which is obviously directly opposed to the purpose of this project.
The impacts on London and its surrounding are entirely inherent to the technology of commercial aviation.

Constructing heathrow will cost many many billions, take decades, and pile massive transport disruption onto the entire region.

 

[TravelDream]

The problem is the only way to mitigate the impact of Heathrow is to reduce the number of flights - which is obviously directly opposed to the purpose of this project.

You clearly have a hatred of the airport.

Do you really think it's the 'only' way?

Airplanes built today are far quieter than those built in the 90s, never mind the 60s and 70s. Concorde would make windows shake - no modern plane does that. That in itself is a massive reduction in the impact. A quick Google tells me that their noise footprint is down significantly since 2000.


Obviously, a third runway isn't ideal for everyone. But, believe it or not, the country needs critical infrastructure like airports, power stations, rubbish dumps, motorways, pylons etc. etc.
They have to go in someone's back yard. The best back yard is the one where basically every single resident moved in when there was already a large international airport present.

People in the area may complain about Heathrow but what would the local economy be like without it?

Too true. Some people just don't get how critical infrastructure is. Where would Singapore be without its airport and port? Probably still a backwater filled with pverty and ethnic tension.

 

[pug1]

No it doesn't. If it did, British Airways wouldn't have to offer its connecting tickets from European airports at a deep discount (hence the popularity of "ex-EU flights" to tier-point runners) to attract that custom.


So we're throwing £100m up the wall on HS2 to persuade regional passengers out of aeroplanes and then we're going to expand Heathrow with the sop of creating more regional slot pairs. I know Reeves has always been in favour of Heathrow expansion but Labour need to pick a position and stick to it.

Regional flights weren't priced out of Heathrow, the problem was that not enough people wanted to use them. And the reason for that was straightforward: unless you're connecting into other flights or live in certain parts of the Home Counties, Heathrow is simply not that convenient.

There's a very good reason why Little Red sank without trace within four years.

So you’re telling me that on the one hand it’s pointless having a hub as 35% of passengers never leave the airport, but then talk about something to do with discounts on European routes? You don’t seem to have a point, or you don’t grasp what I’m saying. Airlines will pay a premium to fly from LHR, slots are rare as rocking horse droppings, it is full due to demand. 35% (your figures) never leaving the airport would mean that 75% have O&D in the uk, so by virtue of that the hub network does provide vital connectivity that otherwise might not be viable.

As for your statement that people didn’t use the services enough. That is 100% utter rubbish. When I started out in the aviation industry I worked for an operator that had an extensive feeder network providing the U.K. regions with links to LHR. By the early 90’s it started costing the same amount to handle a Shorts 360 as it did a B747. So, clearly uneconomical. The routes from Humberside were recording high load factors. British Midland retained some of their regional outstations, LBA and MME, for a decade or so more before they too had to give it up. When FlyBE were still in business they were pushing for a third runway to provide connectivity lost due to the capacity constraints and resulting high fixed costs of running the services. The regional market in the UK had shrunk, but Loganair are amongst a couple of others looking to add that guaranteed revenue earner back by gaining slots at LHR and a third runway will provide that capacity required where surface access is still not competitive.

As for HS2, my understanding from the language used was that it was mainly to relieve capacity on the existing rail network and not to reduce the number of domestic air services (though I know they will have used that point as justification, interlining would still be the preferred option for any air passenger), so I think you’re trying to argue a point that doesn’t exist.

 

[Magdalia]

Thanks for all of the contributions so far. I don't know much about 21st century aviation and feel I don't know enough about the three airports' contributions to the UK economy, actual and prospective.

Heathrow

Being a hub makes Heathrow different from Gatwick or Luton, its competitors are in Europe. But is it just a hub for other UK starts/destinations? Transit in from abroad and out to abroad is a UK export, but how big is it? How much would a third runway boost in from abroad and out to abroad transits? Could Heathrow make more money for the UK, without a new runway, by junking domestic connecting flights to free up capacity for more lucrative international flights?

And is there an agglomeration effect with more businesses choosing to locate nearby if there is more connectivity?

On the other hand I'm made aware of the externalities every time I visit the National Archives at Kew, as it is directly underneath the flight path.

I know a lot more about 20th century aviation history. I studied the Roskill Commission and not building Cublington was one of the UK's biggest ever economic errors. I also agree that Heathrow would be a fantastic site for redevelopment. However, the UK economy is so fragile that it can't take the risk of trying to move its hub airport now. I'm not even sure that it can risk the disruption of turning Heathrow and the surrounding area into a building site for many years.

Gatwick and Luton

These are not hub airports, they are mainly journeys to and from the UK. Bluntly, do these airports mainly generate exports, that is international visitors coming to spend in the UK, or imports, that is UK residents going to spend their money abroad? I don't think the UK should be investing in projects where the main impact is to make the Balance of Payments worse.

Rail connectivity

All of the three proposals will increase demand for rail travel to and from the airports, especially to/from London. What rail investment would be needed and how would it be paid for?

Construction industry

By far my biggest worry about airport expansion is crowding out, especially with Heathrow. The UK already has a shortage of construction industry capacity which is needed elsewhere, especially for building new towns.

 

[Tetchytyke]

So you’re telling me that on the one hand it’s pointless having a hub as 35% of passengers never leave the airport, but then talk about something to do with discounts on European routes?

BA offer huge discounts on ex-EU fares to attract customers who would otherwise fly with the direct airline. If there was a huge latent demand to fly via Heathrow they wouldn’t do this: they wouldn’t need to. The ex-EU fares are clearly there to fill up capacity that would otherwise go unsold, both on the short haul network and the long haul network.

35% of the passengers going through Heathrow never go airside as they’re on these deep discount tickets. Their net contribution to the UK economy is a pint and a burger in Wetherspoon.

Loganair are amongst a couple of others looking to add that guaranteed revenue earner back by gaining slots at LHR

It’s such a guaranteed earner for Loganair that both routes they fly from Heathrow- to the Isle of Man and to Derry- are underwritten by the respective governments of the IOM and NI.

 

[camflyer]

It would remain a highly dynamic area of the economy by virtue of close proximity to London.
Especially when Heathrow is redeveloped to be a new high density urban area with a large population.

A large population who would live a long way from an airport while all of jobs which were at Heathrow are lost

 

[pug1]

BA offer huge discounts on ex-EU fares to attract customers who would otherwise fly with the direct airline. If there was a huge latent demand to fly via Heathrow they wouldn’t do this: they wouldn’t need to. The ex-EU fares are clearly there to fill up capacity that would otherwise go unsold, both on the short haul network and the long haul network.

35% of the passengers going through Heathrow never go airside as they’re on these deep discount tickets. Their net contribution to the UK economy is a pint and a burger in Wetherspoon.


It’s such a guaranteed earner for Loganair that both routes they fly from Heathrow- to the Isle of Man and to Derry- are underwritten by the respective governments of the IOM and NI.

No, they do so to fill their network. This is basic airline economics that you apparently fail to grasp. Your reasoning is dubious, I seem to recall LHR is one of the best airports in the world in terms of global connectivity, in no small part because of its hub status. Yet you’re suggesting that its net contribution is akin to a beer and burger in Wetherspoons? I think you’ve had a few in Wetherspoons today judging by your argument.

When talking about the reopening of airports like DSA, those that serve only the outbound leisure passenger and the odd bit of freight that other airports don’t want, then yes I would agree. I’d even go so far as to say they are an economic drain. But LHR provides the entire U.K. the choice of direct connections to more global markets than most other airports in the world. Its contribution to the economy can therefore not be understated.

Yes Loganair at the moment have PSO routes to LHR, but it’s a case of watch this space… They’re in discussions currently with BA to open more interline routes on BA codeshares on inter-UK routes that have been abandoned previously.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Building a third runway at Heathrow is impossible. It is almost certainly impossible to build and even if it can be done it would be astronomically expensive. AIUI Heathrow Airport is already loaded with debt so I cannot see how it would raise the enormous amount of money which would be needed to build a third runway.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Would it be possible for Heathrow to shift the southern runway a bit further north and build a 2.5km runway close to the cargo area for short haul flights, which would then mostly depart from T4?

 

[Verulamius]

What would be the local transport improvements conditions that would apply if a third runway was to be built at Heathrow?

Restarting the west rail link? A new southern rail link to Staines and Woking?

 

[pug1]

Building a third runway at Heathrow is impossible. It is almost certainly impossible to build and even if it can be done it would be astronomically expensive. AIUI Heathrow Airport is already loaded with debt so I cannot see how it would raise the enormous amount of money which would be needed to build a third runway.

I tend to agree that finances are what is likely to stifle any third runway project at LHR. I’m certain money will come from somewhere but there will be years of legal challenges to overcome before any spades hit the soil, this will inevitably lead to increased costs (where have we seen this before) and eventually the plan will most likely be shelved, again. However, if the airport gets the backing of foreign investors, which let’s face it is most likely to be where the money is coming from, then it’s still got a fairly strong chance of happening. Most recent estimate was £14bn, but it would make that back no problem.

Let’s not kid ourselves that this is inherently Red vs Blue politics though, given the area that would be most affected. It took a back seat for the 14 year Conservative era because of this. Reminder Boris island?

That is not to detract from the fact that I believe London needs an expanded airport, and sadly that airport will need to be LHR. LTN and LGW expansion accepted, it’s just not the same and won’t land the same with the world’s airlines because if they can’t get into LHR they tend to just go somewhere on the continent instead.

Interesting times.

 

[daodao]

The Green Party has issued a thoughtful comment in response to this news.

Greens respond to possible airport expansions - Green Party

Responding to the news that Rachel Reeves is expected to give the go-ahead to a series of airport expansions across the UK, Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion, Sian Berry, said: “We must ask who these decisions would be made for and why. Whose advice is the Government listening to, when...

greenparty.org.uk

Greens respond to possible airport expansions​

21 January 2025
Responding to the news that Rachel Reeves is expected to give the go-ahead to a series of airport expansions across the UK, Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion, Sian Berry, said:

“We must ask who these decisions would be made for and why. Whose advice is the Government listening to, when record-high wealth inequality is causing harm to the economy and society in many different ways, while frequent flying is the preserve of the super-rich?
“The aviation lobby is loud and well-funded, but the Government should instead be listening to scientists and its own Climate Change Committee, which has already urged a halt to overall airport expansion. The previous Labour government’s poor record on airport expansion doesn’t have to continue.
“If Ed Miliband is serious in his role as Net-Zero Minister, he will work to prevent the Chancellor and Transport Secretaries making a huge mistake, and advise the Chancellor to not make any dangerous new decisions until they have heard and listened to the new advice from the Climate Change Committee which is due in February.”

One alternative to airport expansion is to make better use of existing capacity for more longer distance international/intercontinental flights by restricting short distance flights where surface transport provides a reasonable alternative, as has been done in France. For London Heathrow, flights could be prohibited to destinations that have a regular direct train service from central London at least every 2 hours and taking less than 5 hours. If this was implemented, Brussels, Edinburgh, Glasgow (Abbotsinch), Manchester, Newcastle and Paris (Charles de Gaulle/Orly) would no longer be served, freeing up a significant number of slots for longer distance flights.

 

[The exile]

The Green Party has issued a thoughtful comment in response to this news.

Greens respond to possible airport expansions - Green Party

Responding to the news that Rachel Reeves is expected to give the go-ahead to a series of airport expansions across the UK, Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion, Sian Berry, said: “We must ask who these decisions would be made for and why. Whose advice is the Government listening to, when...

greenparty.org.uk

One alternative to airport expansion is to make better use of existing capacity for more longer distance international/intercontinental flights by restricting short distance flights where surface transport provides a reasonable alternative, as has been done in France. For London Heathrow, flights could be prohibited to destinations that have a regular direct train service from central London at least every 2 hours and taking less than 5 hours. If this was implemented, Brussels, Edinburgh, Glasgow (Abbotsinch), Manchester, Newcastle and Paris (Charles de Gaulle) would no longer be served, freeing up a significant number of slots for longer distance flights.

That might work if those rail services served Heathrow direct - otherwise the hub element is lost.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Being a hub makes Heathrow different from Gatwick or Luton, its competitors are in Europe. But is it just a hub for other UK starts/destinations? Transit in from abroad and out to abroad is a UK export, but how big is it? How much would a third runway boost in from abroad and out to abroad transits? Could Heathrow make more money for the UK, without a new runway, by junking domestic connecting flights to free up capacity for more lucrative international flights?

If airlines want a hub airport in Europe they will not choose an airport in the only country in Europe where citizens of all other European countries except the Republic of Ireland will need an electronic permit to enter. By contrast Dublin not only offers permit free entry to citizens of all other European countries, it also enables air passengers travelling to the United States of America to pass though United States immigration before boarding the flight to the United States of America. If the UK Government wants airlines to use any UK airport as a hub airport they need to re-join the European Economic Area so citizens of all European countries can enter the UK under freedom of movement rules.

 

[SJL2020]

Fly, Baby, Fly!!!

 

[Snow1964]

I tend to agree that finances are what is likely to stifle any third runway project at LHR. I’m certain money will come from somewhere but there will be years of legal challenges to overcome before any spades hit the soil, this will inevitably lead to increased costs (where have we seen this before) and eventually the plan will most likely be shelved, again. However, if the airport gets the backing of foreign investors, which let’s face it is most likely to be where the money is coming from, then it’s still got a fairly strong chance of happening. Most recent estimate was £14bn, but it would make that back no problem.

If there is lot of Middle Eastern money, (and I wouldn't rule out Chinese involvement either) and they can get a proportion of new terminal space and landing slots as part of the expansion deal. Then it is quite likely that even if it costs £10bn it would go ahead. It is more political meddling that has made it a start stop project over the decades.

The environmental argument that current idea of planes queuing and burning fuel to take off on one runway is better compared to having extra runway and just going (fuel load is bigger in case they wait which causes more emissions).

If continue as now, will either lose out to other European hubs, or planes simply get bigger. There are now very few planes at Heathrow with under 190 seats, whereas 20 years ago 120-150 seat planes were common

 

[camflyer]

One alternative to airport expansion is to make better use of existing capacity for more longer distance international/intercontinental flights by restricting short distance flights where surface transport provides a reasonable alternative, as has been done in France. For London Heathrow, flights could be prohibited to destinations that have a regular direct train service from central London at least every 2 hours and taking less than 5 hours. If this was implemented, Brussels, Edinburgh, Glasgow (Abbotsinch), Manchester, Newcastle and Paris (Charles de Gaulle) would no longer be served, freeing up a significant number of slots for longer distance flights.

If you did that then I can't see anyone flying Newcastle to Las Vegas wanting to go via Heathrow as it would involve having to cross London from Kings Cross. Granted it's easier than it used to be with the Elizabeth Line but it would still be easier for them to connect via Amsterdam, Dublin or Paris.

I would suspect that most people on a NCL to LHR aren't flying city centre to city centre, as obviously the train would win every time, but are connecting passengers. Take away that feeder service from regional airports and a lot long haul routes then become unviable and downgrade Heathrow from a true hub airport.

There is also a political dimension too. The SNP have always been in favour of Heathrow expansion as it gives them easier access to London from smaller Scottish airports (of the sort used by...er.. Scottish MPs),

 

[pug1]

If there is lot of Middle Eastern money, (and I wouldn't rule out Chinese involvement either) and they can get a proportion of new terminal space and landing slots as part of the expansion deal. Then it is quite likely that even if it costs £10bn it would go ahead. It is more political meddling that has made it a start stop project over the decades.

The environmental argument that current idea of planes queuing and burning fuel to take off on one runway is better compared to having extra runway and just going (fuel load is bigger in case they wait which causes more emissions).

If continue as now, will either lose out to other European hubs, or planes simply get bigger. There are now very few planes at Heathrow with under 190 seats, whereas 20 years ago 120-150 seat planes were common

Well the Saudis are rumoured to be wanting to start a major airline to rival Emirates and the like, and part of that would supposedly see significant investment in Heathrow.

I wouldn’t like to be needing to use that stretch of the M25 for my commute if/when the work gets going though.

If you did that then I can see anyone flying Newcastle to Las Vegas wanting to go via Heathrow as it would involve having to cross London from Kings Cross. Granted it's easier than it used to be with the Elizabeth Line but it would still be easier for them to connect via Amsterdam, Dublin or Paris.

I would suspect that most people on a NCL to LHR aren't flying city centre to city centre, as obviously the train would win every time, but are connecting passengers. Take away that feeder service from regional airports and a lot long haul routes then become unviable and downgrade Heathrow from a true hub airport.

There is also a political dimension too. The SNP have always been in favour of Heathrow expansion as it gives them easier access to London from smaller Scottish airports (of the sort used by...er.. Scottish MPs),

Exactly this. Lots of supposition about getting people off aircraft onto surface transport but it misses the point. I’ve mentioned before but it’s one of the reasons KLM have such a strong presence in the U.K. regions, because it’s a relatively seamless interlining facility when compared to the alternative.

 

[daodao]

Exactly this. Lots of supposition about getting people off aircraft onto surface transport but it misses the point. I’ve mentioned before but it’s one of the reasons KLM have such a strong presence in the U.K. regions, because it’s a relatively seamless interlining facility when compared to the alternative.

Amsterdam (Schiphol) has 3 major advantages with respect to transfer traffic compared to London (Heathrow).

• It is the sole major airport in the Netherlands (whereas London has multiple airports) - Eindhoven is mainly used by point-to-point low cost carriers;
• It has a single terminal (compared to 5 completely separate ones at Heathrow); and
• It is within the Schengen area.

There is sufficient traffic to/from London itself so functioning as a "hub" airport is of lesser importance for Heathrow and it cannot compete effectively with Schiphol in this regard apart from a few destinations such as current/former British-occupied territories in the Caribbean.

 

[CdBrux]

One alternative to airport expansion is to make better use of existing capacity for more longer distance international/intercontinental flights by restricting short distance flights where surface transport provides a reasonable alternative, as has been done in France. For London Heathrow, flights could be prohibited to destinations that have a regular direct train service from central London at least every 2 hours and taking less than 5 hours. If this was implemented, Brussels, Edinburgh, Glasgow (Abbotsinch), Manchester, Newcastle and Paris (Charles de Gaulle) would no longer be served, freeing up a significant number of slots for longer distance flights.

This is not strictly correct as I understand. In France those short distance internal flights are still possible, but ONLY for connecting passengers using CDG, for example, as a hub.

 

[Tetchytyke]

No, they do so to fill their network. This is basic airline economics

Yes, they have spare seats and they price them accordingly. To fill their network, as you put it. Which is why Sofia-Heathrow-New York is significantly cheaper than Heathrow-New York. That’s the whole point of hidden city ticketing.

The value of connecting passengers is to fill capacity. Which rather underlines the argument that Heathrow is full to bursting and can’t take any more people. If this were truly the case, there wouldn’t be the cheapo ex-EU fares available as they’d have filled the planes with people paying more money.

Yet you’re suggesting that its net contribution is akin to a beer and burger in Wetherspoons

For someone who files from, say, Sofia to Heathrow to New York without going landside, please do explain to me what their contribution to the UK economy is? Maybe I’m being unfair and they’ll buy a Kitkat and a bottle of Fanta in WH Smith too. They won’t even have to pay the £10 ETA fee now!

If there is lot of Middle Eastern money, (and I wouldn't rule out Chinese involvement either) and they can get a proportion of new terminal space and landing slots as part of the expansion deal.

The biggest owners of Heathrow are a French hedge fund and, even more importantly, the sovereign wealth funds of Qatar, Saudi, and Singapore. Qatar also have a significant stake in British Airways.

Money won’t be an issue if they want it to happen. And I’m sure money is what will grease Reeves’ palms even though there is widespread opposition from across the political spectrum to Heathrow expansion.

 

[The exile]

For someone who files from, say, Sofia to Heathrow to New York without going landside, please do explain to me what their contribution to the UK economy is? Maybe I’m being unfair and they’ll buy a Kitkat and a bottle of Fanta in WH Smith too. They won’t even have to pay the £10 ETA fee now!

 

[TravelDream]

BA offer huge discounts on ex-EU fares to attract customers who would otherwise fly with the direct airline. If there was a huge latent demand to fly via Heathrow they wouldn’t do this: they wouldn’t need to. The ex-EU fares are clearly there to fill up capacity that would otherwise go unsold, both on the short haul network and the long haul network.

35% of the passengers going through Heathrow never go airside as they’re on these deep discount tickets. Their net contribution to the UK economy is a pint and a burger in Wetherspoon.

I think you fail to understand the basics of capitalism and how business works.

If I could sell a Bic blue biro for £1000, it's value would be £1000 not the 50p it's normally sold for or the 3p it costs to make.


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

So BA will charge more for London to NYC than Paris - London - NYC.
Or Air France will charge more for Paris to Washington DC than Manchester - Paris - Washington.

These connecting ones face more competition and are less attractive because of the connection. On the plus side, they allow airlines to fill up spare capacity and help make more routes viable.

London to Buenos Aires might have pretty good demand and yield, but not quite enough for a daily flight. Those connections allow BA to serve the city profitably. That means the UK has a daily connection to Argentina which is a boon for Britain, British business and investment in Britain.

 

[pug1]

Yes, they have spare seats and they price them accordingly. To fill their network, as you put it. Which is why Sofia-Heathrow-New York is significantly cheaper than Heathrow-New York. That’s the whole point of hidden city ticketing.

The value of connecting passengers is to fill capacity. Which rather underlines the argument that Heathrow is full to bursting and can’t take any more people. If this were truly the case, there wouldn’t be the cheapo ex-EU fares available as they’d have filled the planes with people paying more money.


For someone who files from, say, Sofia to Heathrow to New York without going landside, please do explain to me what their contribution to the UK economy is? Maybe I’m being unfair and they’ll buy a Kitkat and a bottle of Fanta in WH Smith too. They won’t even have to pay the £10 ETA fee now!


The biggest owners of Heathrow are a French hedge fund and, even more importantly, the sovereign wealth funds of Qatar, Saudi, and Singapore. Qatar also have a significant stake in British Airways.

Money won’t be an issue if they want it to happen. And I’m sure money is what will grease Reeves’ palms even though there is widespread opposition from across the political spectrum to Heathrow expansion.

Because they need those people to fill the aircraft. If they didn’t have a feeder network the yield management would have it that either prices from LHR to New York would have to increase exponentially to make up for the shortfall in connecting support, or they would have to reduce frequency or completely scrap the route altogether depending on demand. You can’t fly an aircraft half full (one average) whilst selling the fares at a fixed cost that doesn’t at least cover the cost of the flight. By encouraging people to connect ‘at cost’ it not only provides access from Sofia to London but it enables greater loads on connecting routes to New York thus supporting the route and maintaining it to retain viability in the connections.

So LHR is full to bursting because of its hub and spoke network. Take that away, as you appear to be proposing, and yes it may free up capacity, but it would also run the risk of reducing and/or eliminating the viability of routes and frequencies from the U.K. to Global Markets directly. This would put the U.K. at a disadvantage.

Sorry but your argument isn’t even tenuous. You’re using mental gymnastics to make a point that doesn’t exist anyway. If you’re referring to the environmental aspect then I do have some sympathy with that, but you are arguing against the fundamental principles of the business and it doesn’t work like that. If you’re advocating restricting the total number of flights that is fine, but don’t try justify it by using incorrect assumptions.

 

[camflyer]

For someone who files from, say, Sofia to Heathrow to New York without going landside, please do explain to me what their contribution to the UK economy is? Maybe I’m being unfair and they’ll buy a Kitkat and a bottle of Fanta in WH Smith too. They won’t even have to pay the £10 ETA fee now!

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.

Multiply that by dozens of other connecting services and the UK benefits from a lot of direct services which otherwise would have meant a connection in Amsterdam, Frankfurt or Paris.

 

[gabrielhj07]

If airlines want a hub airport in Europe they will not choose an airport in the only country in Europe where citizens of all other European countries except the Republic of Ireland will need an electronic permit to enter. By contrast Dublin not only offers permit free entry to citizens of all other European countries, it also enables air passengers travelling to the United States of America to pass though United States immigration before boarding the flight to the United States of America. If the UK Government wants airlines to use any UK airport as a hub airport they need to re-join the European Economic Area so citizens of all European countries can enter the UK under freedom of movement rules.

Left to their own devices, the Irish are doing a marvellous job of stifling growth at Dublin. Heathrow should step up and not fall into the same nonsense.

All this talk of cutting domestic/short haul flights where suitable ground alternatives exist is so Beeching-esque it's tiring. 'Throw all the feeder services in the bin, then scratch your head and wonder why demand for the trunk routes halves'.

 

[daodao]

All this talk of cutting domestic/short haul flights where suitable ground alternatives exist is so Beeching-esque it's tiring. 'Throw all the feeder services in the bin, then scratch your head and wonder why demand for the trunk routes halves'.

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.