On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 12:47:40 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 12:22:10 on
Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked:

BA, which dominated the North terminal when it first opened, will soon
be squeezed out of that terminal, into the older South terminal.

Which they must have inherited from the British Caledonian routes (the
takeover was almost the same month the terminal opened). BA subsequently
decided that its long-haul should be predominantly from Heathrow.

Basically, BA puts as many flights into Heathrow as will fit, with the
overflow left in Gatwick. As long haul is more profitable, it's
largely in Heathrow, apart from beach flights. Virgin does exactly the
same. Most US airlines moved entirely to Heathrow as soon as they were
allowed to.

In message , at 13:04:37 on
Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked:
http://goo.gl/maps/ohZXO

And if you draw another arc mirroring the shuttle to the north terminal
(you aren't getting confused by the satellite I hope) it'll end up
exactly where the new terminal is pictured, just south of the eastern
end of the existing runway.

No, it's nearly twice as far. A flipped arc would get you just beyond
the end of the runway, not the terminal.

But the corner of the terminal is only a taxi-way (or about three
plane-lengths) from the corner of the runway. Utterly trivial for a
shuttle train's transit time.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 13:07:29 on
Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked:
Basically, BA puts as many flights into Heathrow as will fit, with the
overflow left in Gatwick. As long haul is more profitable, it's
largely in Heathrow, apart from beach flights. Virgin does exactly the
same.

Exactly - and it's those beach flights which are the ones least likely
to be benefiting from a hub effect.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 13:14:48 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 13:07:29 on
Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked:
Basically, BA puts as many flights into Heathrow as will fit, with the
overflow left in Gatwick. As long haul is more profitable, it's
largely in Heathrow, apart from beach flights. Virgin does exactly the
same.

Exactly - and it's those beach flights which are the ones least likely
to be benefiting from a hub effect.

True, but the demand is for more hub flights, which is why it's
Heathrow that's bursting at the seams, while LCC-focused Stansted and
Gatwick are short of business. With six international airports, London
isn't really short of runway capacity, but it desperately needs a
bigger hub airport.

On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 13:13:07 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 13:04:37 on
Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked:
http://goo.gl/maps/ohZXO

And if you draw another arc mirroring the shuttle to the north terminal
(you aren't getting confused by the satellite I hope) it'll end up
exactly where the new terminal is pictured, just south of the eastern
end of the existing runway.

No, it's nearly twice as far. A flipped arc would get you just beyond
the end of the runway, not the terminal.

But the corner of the terminal is only a taxi-way (or about three
plane-lengths) from the corner of the runway. Utterly trivial for a
shuttle train's transit time.

Of course, this discussion of the length of a flipped arc is all a bit
academic, as the inter-terminal link would be underground, and would
presumably take a straighter, more direct route under the runway and
two taxiways, rather like the Barajas T4 link.

In message , at 14:02:55 on
Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked:
Basically, BA puts as many flights into Heathrow as will fit, with the
overflow left in Gatwick. As long haul is more profitable, it's
largely in Heathrow, apart from beach flights. Virgin does exactly the
same.

Exactly - and it's those beach flights which are the ones least likely
to be benefiting from a hub effect.

True, but the demand is for more hub flights, which is why it's
Heathrow that's bursting at the seams, while LCC-focused Stansted and
Gatwick are short of business. With six international airports, London
isn't really short of runway capacity, but it desperately needs a
bigger hub airport.

What it needs to do is shift some of the non-hub flights away from
Heathrow.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:02:55 on
Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked:
Basically, BA puts as many flights into Heathrow as will fit, with the
overflow left in Gatwick. As long haul is more profitable, it's
largely in Heathrow, apart from beach flights. Virgin does exactly the
same.

Exactly - and it's those beach flights which are the ones least likely
to be benefiting from a hub effect.

True, but the demand is for more hub flights, which is why it's
Heathrow that's bursting at the seams, while LCC-focused Stansted and
Gatwick are short of business. With six international airports, London
isn't really short of runway capacity, but it desperately needs a
bigger hub airport.

What it needs to do is shift some of the non-hub flights away from Heathrow.

The airlines operating those flights obviously thought it worthwhile to pay
for expensive slot pairs at Heathrow, instead of the much cheaper ones at
Gatwick or the even cheaper ones at Stansted. Gatwick actually lost *all*
of its US airlines to Heathrow. The fact is that the demand is
overwhelmingly at Heathrow, while Gatwick says it has 25% spare capacity.

On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 11:44:10 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 10:41:33 GMT, d wrote:

On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 10:44:46 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:22:49 +0100, Roland Perry
True, but also much, much more demand for it. Apart from Gatwick
airport itself, not many people are demanding a second runway there.
Pretty much the entire business community and airline industry want
Heathrow to expand.

Which "entire business community" would this be then? Give some examples.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/...ick-airport-ex
ansion

The CBI is a private political lobbying organisation that represents a small
fraction of businesses in this country.

Got a proper example?

--
Spud

In message

, at 10:33:56 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner
remarked:

What it needs to do is shift some of the non-hub flights away from Heathrow.

The airlines operating those flights obviously thought it worthwhile to pay
for expensive slot pairs at Heathrow, instead of the much cheaper ones at
Gatwick or the even cheaper ones at Stansted.

But with limited capacity they need to make decisions about which are
the mist valuable flights to continue from Heathrow.

Gatwick actually lost *all* of its US airlines to Heathrow.

Yes, but back in the day every US electronic component company thought
they had to be in Bath Road, Slough.

The fact is that the demand is overwhelmingly at Heathrow, while
Gatwick says it has 25% spare capacity.

But if the cost (political etc) of expanding Heathrow is too high...
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 11:50:51 +0100
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 02/09/2014 11:40, d wrote:
Logic actually favours no expansion at all.
By this you mean your logic or the logic you're minded to believe in?

This logic:
Expansion will do next to nothing for UK business
Will add to pollution
Will add to noise

The hub part is one argument, but it can clearly be argued that
expansion to even handle the current number of flights is necessary to
prevent stacking or horrendous problems caused by the smallest of issues
due to lack of over-capacity.

Flights arn't a natural phenomenon that have to be dealt with. They don't
suddenly appear out of the ether. If the airports can't cope with the amount
of flights they shouldn't give the airlines the slots in the first place.
Simple. If they're over capacity its their own damn faults.

I await the response that if you build more capacity it will fill up,

So you don't think it will after a decade or 2?

and you hear the same argument about road building. Strangely, it's
rarely used when it comes to railways. But in any case if people feel

Apart from HS1 and crossrail, when was the last time a major railway was
built in this country? Or to be more precise - which century? And have you
no noticed all the complaining about HS2?

so strongly about such things they should examine their overall
travelling habits - but then they couldn't have their big house in the
leafy suburbs....

I don't fly more than once every few years, and I try and use public
transport where possible. So I might not be at the top of the moral high
ground but I suspect I'm higher up than most. And good luck buying a house
in a city centre these days.

If we see air travel as a necessity, even if that is an evil necessity,

Do we?

then logic would dictate that you need a single airport that is easy
and quick to get to from all parts of the area it serves to use the
capacity as efficiently as possible - I haven't looked at the schedules
but I can well believe every London airport has several flights a day to
particular european destinations that could easily be consolidated into
less "movements" in larger, more efficient, planes if that were the case.

Probably, but they're no doubt run by different airlines who would cry foul
if one airline was given sole responsibility for a route. Unless they had
a rota. Either way, can't see it happening.

--
Spud