Airport expansion: Heathrow runway 3 and Gatwick runway 2 constituteshortlist
 

Apparently, Boris Island will be considered next year, but isn't on the
shortlist. How that sentence can mean anything is beyond me.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/449...twick-airports

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

"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...

Apparently, Boris Island will be considered next year, but isn't on the
shortlist. How that sentence can mean anything is beyond me.

it's apparently just to stop Boris being too negative.

Glad to see the guy dis the idea that London *has* to have a hub.

I've never bought into that one bit

tim

Airport expansion: Heathrow runway 3 and Gatwick runway 2 constitute
 

On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 16:40:39 +0000
Basil Jet wrote:
Apparently, Boris Island will be considered next year, but isn't on the
shortlist. How that sentence can mean anything is beyond me.


I think it translates as "We don't want to embarrass the 2nd most powerful
conservative politician in the country but pointing out that his idea would
even be too daft for Cuckoo Lands Xmas Festival of Really Stupid Ideas"

Far too expensive
Enviromental disaster
Wrong side of London for most of the population
Obstruction to shipping
Would blight key Tory constituencies
Airlines not interested anyway

--
Spud

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

Basil Jet wrote:
Apparently, Boris Island will be considered next year, but isn't on the
shortlist. How that sentence can mean anything is beyond me.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/449...twick-airports

It means the commissions' arms were twisted to keep another non-Heathrow
option technically in consideration to stop Boris creating too much noise.

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

"tim......" wrote:
"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...

Apparently, Boris Island will be considered next year, but isn't on the
shortlist. How that sentence can mean anything is beyond me.

it's apparently just to stop Boris being too negative.

Glad to see the guy dis the idea that London *has* to have a hub.

I've never bought into that one bit

London does have a hub. It's just too small.

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

On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:54:58 -0600
Recliner wrote:
"tim......" wrote:
"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...

Apparently, Boris Island will be considered next year, but isn't on the
shortlist. How that sentence can mean anything is beyond me.

it's apparently just to stop Boris being too negative.

Glad to see the guy dis the idea that London *has* to have a hub.

I've never bought into that one bit

London does have a hub. It's just too small.

Too small for what? Too small to have even more transit passengers spending
hardly any money in the UK in the few hours they spend here before they fly
off again? Too bad. There is more than enough runway capacity in the southeast,
we don't need any more. If BA gave up its regional slots at heathrow there'd
be no issue there either. Theres zero good reason for flights to leeds and
newcastle from london in the first place when the train can do the job
perfectly adequately, and such flights if they must happen could easily be
done from City or Luton.

--
Spud

Airport expansion: Heathrow runway 3 and Gatwick runway 2 constituteshortlist
 

On 2013\12\17 17:13, d wrote:
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:54:58 -0600
Recliner wrote:
"tim......" wrote:
"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...

Apparently, Boris Island will be considered next year, but isn't on the
shortlist. How that sentence can mean anything is beyond me.

it's apparently just to stop Boris being too negative.

Glad to see the guy dis the idea that London *has* to have a hub.

I've never bought into that one bit

London does have a hub. It's just too small.

Too small for what? Too small to have even more transit passengers spending
hardly any money in the UK in the few hours they spend here before they fly
off again? Too bad. There is more than enough runway capacity in the southeast,
we don't need any more. If BA gave up its regional slots at heathrow there'd
be no issue there either. Theres zero good reason for flights to leeds and
newcastle from london in the first place when the train can do the job
perfectly adequately, and such flights if they must happen could easily be
done from City or Luton.

.... which would cause people flying from Australia to Newcastle or Leeds
to change at Frankfurt or Amsterdam instead.

Airport expansion: Heathrow runway 3 and Gatwick runway 2 constitute
 

On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 17:31:35 +0000
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2013\12\17 17:13, d wrote:
Too small for what? Too small to have even more transit passengers spending
hardly any money in the UK in the few hours they spend here before they fly
off again? Too bad. There is more than enough runway capacity in the
southeast,
we don't need any more. If BA gave up its regional slots at heathrow there'd
be no issue there either. Theres zero good reason for flights to leeds and
newcastle from london in the first place when the train can do the job
perfectly adequately, and such flights if they must happen could easily be
done from City or Luton.

.... which would cause people flying from Australia to Newcastle or Leeds
to change at Frankfurt or Amsterdam instead.

Umm , so? They'll still be coming to the UK. I think the UK economy can handle
the lost sales of crap in duty free while they wait for their connecting
flight if it means we don't have even more flights blighting the southeast.

This whole airport expansion argument comes across as a juvenile mines bigger
that yours ****ing match. Its pathetic.

--
Spud

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

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:54:58 -0600
Recliner wrote:
"tim......" wrote:
"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...

Apparently, Boris Island will be considered next year, but isn't on the
shortlist. How that sentence can mean anything is beyond me.

it's apparently just to stop Boris being too negative.

Glad to see the guy dis the idea that London *has* to have a hub.

I've never bought into that one bit

London does have a hub. It's just too small.

Too small for what? Too small to have even more transit passengers
spending
hardly any money in the UK in the few hours they spend here before they
fly
off again? Too bad. There is more than enough runway capacity in the
southeast,
we don't need any more. If BA gave up its regional slots at heathrow
there'd
be no issue there either. Theres zero good reason for flights to leeds and
newcastle from london in the first place when the train can do the job
perfectly adequately, and such flights if they must happen could easily be
done from City or Luton.

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.

Except that the only reason that here are seats on the plane is because LH
have bribed Brits to fly via FRA.

This isn't a reason to create a hub, the solution to this problem is to make
sure that your direct flights are competitively priced in the first place!

tim

Airport expansion: Heathrow runway 3 and Gatwick runway 2 constituteshortlist
 

On 2013\12\17 19:21, tim...... wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:54:58 -0600
Recliner wrote:
"tim......" wrote:
"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...

Apparently, Boris Island will be considered next year, but isn't on
the
shortlist. How that sentence can mean anything is beyond me.

it's apparently just to stop Boris being too negative.

Glad to see the guy dis the idea that London *has* to have a hub.

I've never bought into that one bit

London does have a hub. It's just too small.

Too small for what? Too small to have even more transit passengers
spending
hardly any money in the UK in the few hours they spend here before
they fly
off again? Too bad. There is more than enough runway capacity in the
southeast,
we don't need any more. If BA gave up its regional slots at heathrow
there'd
be no issue there either. Theres zero good reason for flights to leeds
and
newcastle from london in the first place when the train can do the job
perfectly adequately, and such flights if they must happen could
easily be
done from City or Luton.

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.

Except that the only reason that here are seats on the plane is because
LH have bribed Brits to fly via FRA.

This isn't a reason to create a hub, the solution to this problem is to
make sure that your direct flights are competitively priced in the first
place!

standing ovation

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

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.

--
Roland Perry

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

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.

--
Spud

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

wrote:
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.

Who do you think would pay for the expansion of Heathrow? Not the
government.

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

"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

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

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.

Actually it won't be the government spending the money (but otherwise I
agree)

but instead it will be the government (or rather the governing party) who
takes the political flack from all the annoyed residents.

And that's the political puzzle that they have to solve. Which is why
Boris' island will never fly as there isn't the commercial support available
to fund it. Fortunately, both the LHR and LGW options would (more or less)
be self financing so they have a "free" choice there.

tim

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

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


Actually it won't be the government spending the money (but otherwise I agree)

but instead it will be the government (or rather the governing party) who
takes the political flack from all the annoyed residents.

And that's the political puzzle that they have to solve. Which is why
Boris' island will never fly as there isn't the commercial support
available to fund it. Fortunately, both the LHR and LGW options would
(more or less) be self financing so they have a "free" choice there.

Boris Island would also need a huge publicly funded transport
infrastructure to replace those the one already exists at Heathrow. Closing
Heathrow would also deeply **** off the huge business community in the
Thames Valley and west London who are there because of a Heathrow.

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

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

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?




--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

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

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

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?

Spud/Boltar/Neil is a contract programmer who probably doesn't care about
such things.

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

"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.

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

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?

Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry

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

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

In message , at 18:52:01 on
Wed, 18 Dec 2013, Graham Harrison
remarked:
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.

Companies selling (mainly American) computer parts and other electronic
components set up in the 70's along Bath Rd Slough precisely because of
the proximity to Heathrow. Not only did it allow transatlantic visitors
easy access, they could pop to the airport to pick up their inbound air
freight most easily. This spread along the Thames Valley to Reading, and
eventually Newbury (and beyond).
--
Roland Perry

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

In message , at 18:29:52 on Wed, 18
Dec 2013, tim...... remarked:
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)

Still digging I see :(
--
Roland Perry

Airport expansion: Heathrow runway 3 and Gatwick runway 2 constituteshortlist
 

On 17/12/2013 21:08, Recliner wrote:

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

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?

Spud/Boltar/Neil is a contract programmer who probably doesn't care about
such things.

Neil? Not sure he's ever been a Neil, has he?

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

Mizter T wrote:
On 17/12/2013 21:08, Recliner wrote:

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

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?

Spud/Boltar/Neil is a contract programmer who probably doesn't care about
such things.

Neil? Not sure he's ever been a Neil, has he?

Yup, one recent Spud post was from Neil the Shed ). I
speculated that it might be his real name, and he didn't deny 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
...

"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


Firstly my "you're both wrong" comment applied to yield management.

Oh, it was far from clear

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

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

"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


Firstly my "you're both wrong" comment applied to yield management.

Thank you for the Telegraph link. In many places around the world hubs are
defined by the fact that one (occasionally two e.g. Chicago O'Hare) airline
has a dominant position *and* schedules flights in such a way that
connections across the hub can be seen as a series of "waves" with flights
coming in from one direction and a little later a wave going on to other
destinations. It's not the only definition but it's the most prevalent, in
my view.

Heathrow is a hub but perhaps not in quite the same way. Yes, BA bring in
people from all sorts of places and carry them on to further destinations
(so Heathrow is their hub) but they also bring a lot of people to London as
a destination. In the case of BA it's also the case that their hub isn't
simply long to short haul (or vv). Flights from Africa and the Gulf feed
transatlantic services and Africa also feeds the far east . But BA isn't
the only airline hubbing at Heathrow. Star Alliance also have a hub and,
for example, South African feed into United. Part of the reason BA bought
British Midland was to disrupt the feed BD provided to other Star carriers.
There is also an interline hub at Heathrow with some of the smaller short
haul airlines feeding into the long haul services of all the major airlines
without needing to be members of an alliance. BA may be the dominant
airline and have the biggest hub at Heathrow but when you compare it to the
position of (say) Lufthansa at Frankfurt or Munich it's a different traffic
mix and when you consider something like the United hub in Denver you're in
a completely different world.

It's almost possible to define Heathrow as schizophrenic and I'm not clear
whether we're reading the comments from the report correctly or not. I'm
still reading the report and that may clarify things for me. One thing I
am fairly clear on is that BA needs the connecting traffic that it hubs over
Heathrow. It's partly about being able to pull in a mix of currencies from
sales in different countries (their Treasury is quite sophisticated at
managing currencies), partly about being able to pull in higher fares by
connecting one flight (be it short or long) to a long haul and partly about
being able to serve cities that would otherwise not generate sufficient
traffic to warrant a flight to/from Heathrow. It's also about being able
to meet the needs of corporate customers who will have deals with BA on the
basis of providing traffic not just between a city and Heathrow but between
several city pairs which may be Heathrow or connecting over Heathrow.

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

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 18:29:52 on Wed, 18 Dec
2013, tim...... remarked:
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)

Still digging I see :(

Sorry Roland

you cannot possibly infer that just because I disagree with you about the
success that a particular pricing policy has, that I do not understand the
principle involved

it is an utterly ludicrous conclusion to come to

tim


--
Roland Perry

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

In message , at 19:33:34 on Thu, 19
Dec 2013, tim...... remarked:
you cannot possibly infer that just because I disagree with you about
the success that a particular pricing policy has, that I do not
understand the principle involved

Everything you post suggests it. For example that latest comment that
"booking early to get a cheap fare" and "booking indirect routes to get
a cheap fare" are somehow the same thing. Both exist, and are largely
independent of each other. You can't argue against that proposition by
quoting an indirect booking made very late in the day, because it's the
lateness which sets the fare in that case.
--
Roland Perry

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

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 19:33:34 on Thu, 19 Dec
2013, tim...... remarked:
you cannot possibly infer that just because I disagree with you about the
success that a particular pricing policy has, that I do not understand the
principle involved

Everything you post suggests it. For example that latest comment that
"booking early to get a cheap fare" and "booking indirect routes to get a
cheap fare" are somehow the same thing.

No I didn't say they were the same thing

I said (OK I implied) that they were filling the same seats

Both exist, and are largely independent of each other.

Except that they ARE filling the same seats, so they can't be independent of
each other. As soon as all of the "cheap" early booked seat have gone I
wager you that the "cheap "indirect" seats will be full too (or vise versa)!


tim

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

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

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 19:33:34 on Thu, 19 Dec
2013, tim...... remarked:
you cannot possibly infer that just because I disagree with you about the
success that a particular pricing policy has, that I do not understand
the principle involved

Everything you post suggests it. For example that latest comment that
"booking early to get a cheap fare" and "booking indirect routes to get a
cheap fare" are somehow the same thing.

No I didn't say they were the same thing

I said (OK I implied) that they were filling the same seats

Both exist, and are largely independent of each other.

Except that they ARE filling the same seats, so they can't be independent
of each other. As soon as all of the "cheap" early booked seat have gone
I wager you that the "cheap "indirect" seats will be full too (or vise
versa)!


tim


Sorry, no.

Not sure how true this story is but here we go....

A good few years ago an agency in Austin Texas regularly found he couldn't
book passengers on a specific AA flight to Dallas. Then, immediately after
failing to make a booking on that flight someone asked for a trip to New
York which happened to use the "full" flight as far as Dallas. With a
little experimentation the agent found he could book Austin/Dallas/New York
and then cancel the Dallas/New York ending up with what he actually wanted -
Austin/Dallas. It took AA a while to find out what was going on and a row
developed; I can't remember the outcome in terms of AA vs. Agency.

However, the technical result was what is now called "married flights". In
other words the Austin/Dallas and Dallas/New York flights are now stuck
together in such a way that if you book the connection you have to cancel
the whole connection, not just one of the two flights (either of them, you
can't cancel Austin/Dallas either).

It is therefore quite possible for the Austin/Dallas flight to show only
"expensive" seats while the Austin/Dallas/New York shows "cheap" seats.
What AA started is now an industry standard used by many airlines