Airport expansion: Heathrow runway 3 and Gatwick runway 2 constitute shortlist
 

In message , at 21:38:54 on Tue, 17
Dec 2013, tim...... remarked:
You really don't understand yield management, do you?

Yes I do

But you don't.

It's about selling the highest priced fares to people who insist in
direct flights,

and the cheapest ones to people who book early

Completely orthogonal to the issues we are discussing.

then filling the remaining seats with people on feeders from nearby.
The result maximises revenue, even if some people get cheaper flights
as a result of agreeing to be those indirect passengers.

That's fine, but it's no reason to insist you need a hub so that you
can fill a plane that you have artificially made less full than it
might have been

More proof you don't understand yield management.
--
Roland Perry

Airport expansion: Heathrow runway 3 and Gatwick runway 2 constitute shortlist
 

Eric wrote:
On 2013-12-17, Recliner wrote:
Spud/Boltar/Neil is a contract programmer who probably doesn't care about
such things.

And again?

What did some contract programmer ever do to you that you want to use
it as a derogatory term?

Nothing, but it might help explain his lack of understanding of bigger
business issues. I've known lots of contract programmers, and they don't
always see the bigger picture. Admittedly, however, few have been remotely
as unpleasant as Spud/Boltar/Neil.

Airport expansion: Heathrow runway 3 and Gatwick runway 2 constitute shortlist
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"tim......" wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 19:39:01 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 20:21:52 on Tue, 17
Dec 2013, tim...... remarked:
Intra UK transit pax are not the problem. It's the perceived need to
steal pax from other European carries at major European "hubs", that
is

I was researching flights to SA the other day and it is 20% cheaper to
fly LHR-FRA-CPT with LH than it is to fly FRA-CPT

OTOH it is 20% cheaper to fly FRA-LHR-CPT with BA than it is to fly
LHR-CPT.

So the reason that LHR needs to be a hub is because BA (apparently)
can't fill a plane from LHR to CPT without "bribing" pax from Germany
to fly via London.

You really don't understand yield management, do you?

It's about selling the highest priced fares to people who insist in
direct flights, then filling the remaining seats with people on feeders
from nearby. The result maximises revenue, even if some people get
cheaper flights as a result of agreeing to be those indirect
passengers.


Regardless , the whole motive behind blighting somewhere in the
southeast
with another runway seems to be so that airlines and BAA can make more
profit.
It has zilch to do with the UK economy other than the small amount of
extra
corporation tax it would deliver which would be more than ofset by the
billions
it would cost to build the thing in the first place even with partial
private
finance. Its a cynical campaign by private corporations for the
government to
spend huge amounts of public money on some infrastructure that will
benefit
almost no one economically except themselves and their shareholders.

And their customers,

there some double counting here you have mentioned them again (below)

employees

So a new runway at LHR will cause them to give they employees a rise will
it?

and suppliers.

OK I accept this

And those customers will
include businesses that gain from direct flights to secondary cities in
places like China and South America.

There is no proof that:

a) this will happen
b) that it wont happen if the extra runway is somewhere else

I don't buy this need to fly to dozens of regional airports in China. Most
of the companies that contract with UK companies are going to be located in
the "enterprise" areas that are probably already well served by flights.
The (likely) reason that other EU airports have links to more Chinese
airports is because of the demand from the Chinese to come here as tourists,
but we discourage that with our strict visa rules so they chose to go to
other parts of Europe instead. (I'm not saying that's right, but if it
doesn't change I don't believe that more destinations in China would be
served from LHR, if it did have more capacity).

tim

Airport expansion: Heathrow runway 3 and Gatwick runway 2 constitute shortlist
 

"Robin" wrote in message
...
Regardless , the whole motive behind blighting somewhere in the
southeast
with another runway seems to be so that airlines and BAA can make
more profit. It has zilch to do with the UK economy other than the
small amount of extra corporation tax it would deliver which would be
more than ofset by the billions it would cost to build the thing in
the first place even with partial private finance. Its a cynical
campaign by private corporations for the government to spend huge
amounts of public money on some infrastructure that will benefit
almost no one economically except themselves and their shareholders.

Do you think that multinationals don't take into account ease of travel
when deciding where to base overseas offices?

Not to a great extent no. Staff costs (including ease of hiring and firing)
will trump this by the very large margin

Eg that a Chinese company might prefer to base its European operation near
an airport with direct flights to all major Chinese cities?

Prove to me that this will be possible if LHR had an extra runway. I don't
believe that you can do it, it is nonsense speculation

Do you think that having the overseas offices of multinationals does no
good to the UK economy in terms of direct jobs, demand for support
services etc?

Do you think the French, Germans, Dutch etc are mad for building major
airports and that ur David is the only one in step?

The Germans and the Dutch made the right choice 30 years ago.

Unfortunately, we didn't and we are stuck with that bad choice

tim

Airport expansion: Heathrow runway 3 and Gatwick runway 2 constitute shortlist
 

"Graham Harrison" wrote in message
...

"tim......" wrote in message
...

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 20:21:52 on Tue, 17
Dec 2013, tim...... remarked:
Intra UK transit pax are not the problem. It's the perceived need to
steal pax from other European carries at major European "hubs", that is

I was researching flights to SA the other day and it is 20% cheaper to
fly LHR-FRA-CPT with LH than it is to fly FRA-CPT

OTOH it is 20% cheaper to fly FRA-LHR-CPT with BA than it is to fly
LHR-CPT.

So the reason that LHR needs to be a hub is because BA (apparently)
can't fill a plane from LHR to CPT without "bribing" pax from Germany to
fly via London.

You really don't understand yield management, do you?

Yes I do

It's about selling the highest priced fares to people who insist in
direct flights,

and the cheapest ones to people who book early

then filling the remaining seats with people on feeders from nearby. The
result maximises revenue, even if some people get cheaper flights as a
result of agreeing to be those indirect passengers.

That's fine, but it's no reason to insist you need a hub so that you can
fill a plane that you have artificially made less full than it might have
been




You're both wrong.

as I already pointed out

the author of the report agrees with me so he must be wrong as well

tim

Airport expansion: Heathrow runway 3 and Gatwick runway 2 constitute shortlist
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 21:38:54 on Tue, 17 Dec
2013, tim...... remarked:
You really don't understand yield management, do you?

Yes I do

But you don't.


Of course I do, don't be such and idiot

It's about selling the highest priced fares to people who insist in
direct flights,

and the cheapest ones to people who book early

Completely orthogonal to the issues we are discussing.

No it's not

The only reason that the indirect foliage were cheaper was because I was
looking months ahead

Try a couple of days ahead and LH are no longer interesting in bribing pax
to fly via FRA (probably because the connecting flight is full)


then filling the remaining seats with people on feeders from nearby. The
result maximises revenue, even if some people get cheaper flights as a
result of agreeing to be those indirect passengers.

That's fine, but it's no reason to insist you need a hub so that you can
fill a plane that you have artificially made less full than it might have
been

More proof you don't understand yield management.

Rubbish

tim

Airport expansion: Heathrow runway 3 and Gatwick runway 2 constituteshortlist
 

On 2013\12\18 17:22, tim...... wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...

"tim......" wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 19:39:01 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 20:21:52 on Tue, 17
Dec 2013, tim...... remarked:
Intra UK transit pax are not the problem. It's the perceived need to
steal pax from other European carries at major European "hubs",
that is

I was researching flights to SA the other day and it is 20%
cheaper to
fly LHR-FRA-CPT with LH than it is to fly FRA-CPT

OTOH it is 20% cheaper to fly FRA-LHR-CPT with BA than it is to
fly LHR-CPT.

So the reason that LHR needs to be a hub is because BA (apparently)
can't fill a plane from LHR to CPT without "bribing" pax from Germany
to fly via London.

You really don't understand yield management, do you?

It's about selling the highest priced fares to people who insist in
direct flights, then filling the remaining seats with people on
feeders
from nearby. The result maximises revenue, even if some people get
cheaper flights as a result of agreeing to be those indirect
passengers.


Regardless , the whole motive behind blighting somewhere in the
southeast
with another runway seems to be so that airlines and BAA can make
more profit.
It has zilch to do with the UK economy other than the small amount
of extra
corporation tax it would deliver which would be more than ofset by
the billions
it would cost to build the thing in the first place even with
partial private
finance. Its a cynical campaign by private corporations for the
government to
spend huge amounts of public money on some infrastructure that will
benefit
almost no one economically except themselves and their shareholders.

And their customers,

there some double counting here you have mentioned them again (below)

employees

So a new runway at LHR will cause them to give they employees a rise
will it?

and suppliers.

OK I accept this

And those customers will
include businesses that gain from direct flights to secondary cities in
places like China and South America.

There is no proof that:

a) this will happen
b) that it wont happen if the extra runway is somewhere else

I don't buy this need to fly to dozens of regional airports in China.
Most of the companies that contract with UK companies are going to be
located in the "enterprise" areas that are probably already well served
by flights. The (likely) reason that other EU airports have links to
more Chinese airports is because of the demand from the Chinese to come
here as tourists, but we discourage that with our strict visa rules so
they chose to go to other parts of Europe instead. (I'm not saying
that's right, but if it doesn't change I don't believe that more
destinations in China would be served from LHR, if it did have more
capacity).

What you really need is to have a dozen aeroplanes take off from a dozen
Chinese airports simultaneously, then link up mid-air with walkway tubes
linking them all in a straight line so that passengers can walk between
the planes, and then separate and go to a dozen different regional
airports in Britain. The existence of turbulence would mean the tubes
would have to be long and flexible, unlike the short rigid tubes that
link shuttles to space stations.

Airport expansion: Heathrow runway 3 and Gatwick runway 2 constitute shortlist
 

"tim......" wrote in message
...

"Robin" wrote in message
...
Regardless , the whole motive behind blighting somewhere in the
southeast
with another runway seems to be so that airlines and BAA can make
more profit. It has zilch to do with the UK economy other than the
small amount of extra corporation tax it would deliver which would be
more than ofset by the billions it would cost to build the thing in
the first place even with partial private finance. Its a cynical
campaign by private corporations for the government to spend huge
amounts of public money on some infrastructure that will benefit
almost no one economically except themselves and their shareholders.

Do you think that multinationals don't take into account ease of travel
when deciding where to base overseas offices?

Not to a great extent no. Staff costs (including ease of hiring and
firing) will trump this by the very large margin

Eg that a Chinese company might prefer to base its European operation
near an airport with direct flights to all major Chinese cities?

Prove to me that this will be possible if LHR had an extra runway. I
don't believe that you can do it, it is nonsense speculation

Do you think that having the overseas offices of multinationals does no
good to the UK economy in terms of direct jobs, demand for support
services etc?

Do you think the French, Germans, Dutch etc are mad for building major
airports and that ur David is the only one in step?

The Germans and the Dutch made the right choice 30 years ago.

Unfortunately, we didn't and we are stuck with that bad choice

tim


If you look at the M4, M3 and M40 "corridors" you will find many non-UK
businesses. There are all sorts of reasons why they set up there but the
proximity of Heathrow has often been cited by such companies as one (not
the) reason for locating there.

I even have some personal experience of this although it's slightly skewed.
The (UK based and owned) company I worked for in the mid 1980s was asked to
supply some staff to support the start up of a new company that had
shareholders from 8 different companies. The company settled in Swindon
(of all places) and I spent a year working there. The nature of the work
was such that they needed some specialist programmers (not me) of which
there was a group around Heathrow employed by one of the shareholders.
They would have preferred to be nearer to Heathrow (subsequently they moved
to Windsor by which time much of the coding had moved to India) but there
was a feeling that Swindon was far enough to stop too many Heathrow based
programmers moving down the road.

As I said earlier, there are a number of reasons why companies choose their
locations. In this case there were some rather attractive grants and
things like rent holidays on offer for settling in Swindon.

But, of course, that experience is well out of date. Does it still happen?
Would the building of a new runway (and terminal) at Heathrow bring in more
companies? Well, you can look at a reverse example. The banks, in
London, have moved to Canary Wharf. Not all of them but enough to make it
worth British Airways acquiring 2 A318s for the specific purpose of
operating between London City and JFK New York. Would BA be operating that
route without the companies in Canary Wharf providing the traffic base? I
doubt it; some of the traffic will come from companies that stayed in "the
City" but I doubt the justification would have been there without the move
to Canary Wharf and the building of City Airport.

Then there are the regional airports. Several have lost their connections
to Heathrow, Inverness and Plymouth spring to mind. The companies based
near those airports have complained vociferously (but unsuccessfully) about
the loss of access to Heathrow in particular and London (but Inverness now
has flights to Gatwick).

You're absolutely right, there are all sorts of reasons why companies locate
in a particular place but to dismiss airport access and the routes from that
airport is wrong in my view.

Airport expansion: Heathrow runway 3 and Gatwick runway 2 constitute shortlist
 

"tim......" wrote in message
...

"Graham Harrison" wrote in
message ...

"tim......" wrote in message
...

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 20:21:52 on Tue, 17
Dec 2013, tim...... remarked:
Intra UK transit pax are not the problem. It's the perceived need to
steal pax from other European carries at major European "hubs", that is

I was researching flights to SA the other day and it is 20% cheaper to
fly LHR-FRA-CPT with LH than it is to fly FRA-CPT

OTOH it is 20% cheaper to fly FRA-LHR-CPT with BA than it is to fly
LHR-CPT.

So the reason that LHR needs to be a hub is because BA (apparently)
can't fill a plane from LHR to CPT without "bribing" pax from Germany
to fly via London.

You really don't understand yield management, do you?

Yes I do

It's about selling the highest priced fares to people who insist in
direct flights,

and the cheapest ones to people who book early

then filling the remaining seats with people on feeders from nearby.
The result maximises revenue, even if some people get cheaper flights
as a result of agreeing to be those indirect passengers.

That's fine, but it's no reason to insist you need a hub so that you can
fill a plane that you have artificially made less full than it might
have been




You're both wrong.

as I already pointed out

the author of the report agrees with me so he must be wrong as well

tim




I haven't found that yet in the report or the appendicies. Can you please
point me to it?

Airport expansion: Heathrow runway 3 and Gatwick runway 2 constitute shortlist
 

"Graham Harrison" wrote in message
...

"tim......" wrote in message
...

"Graham Harrison" wrote in
message ...

"tim......" wrote in message
...

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 20:21:52 on Tue, 17
Dec 2013, tim...... remarked:
Intra UK transit pax are not the problem. It's the perceived need to
steal pax from other European carries at major European "hubs", that
is

I was researching flights to SA the other day and it is 20% cheaper to
fly LHR-FRA-CPT with LH than it is to fly FRA-CPT

OTOH it is 20% cheaper to fly FRA-LHR-CPT with BA than it is to fly
LHR-CPT.

So the reason that LHR needs to be a hub is because BA (apparently)
can't fill a plane from LHR to CPT without "bribing" pax from Germany
to fly via London.

You really don't understand yield management, do you?

Yes I do

It's about selling the highest priced fares to people who insist in
direct flights,

and the cheapest ones to people who book early

then filling the remaining seats with people on feeders from nearby.
The result maximises revenue, even if some people get cheaper flights
as a result of agreeing to be those indirect passengers.

That's fine, but it's no reason to insist you need a hub so that you
can fill a plane that you have artificially made less full than it
might have been




You're both wrong.

as I already pointed out

the author of the report agrees with me so he must be wrong as well

tim




I haven't found that yet in the report or the appendicies. Can you
please point me to it?

It was repored in the newspaper, must have been the Telegraph as that's the
only one that I read at work

here it is

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...hort-list.html

"Although two options have been short-listed for a possible third runway at
Heathrow, Sir Howard said the commission is not convinced that London would
be best served by one big hub airport"

tim