So, Heathrow........

IronGiant

Can be?  is there any doubt?

Greg Hook

Gatwick is a piece of cake to get to, PROVIDING, that the damn M25 isn't clogged up around junctions 16-20 which it always seems to be.

johntheexpat

But is the whole debate about London and its airports about you and me or is it about business and exports?  Isn't the whole debate about being a "hub" and the potential for exports, rather than an increase in the number of UK based people who are going to fly in and out of the newly expanded (whichever) airport?  So surely the debate isn't about how easy it is for someone to get to Heathrow vs Gatwick, its about attracting in international airlines and persuading them to use Heathrow as a hub.  Then its about allowing businesses access to flights to aid and abet their export efforts, (insomuch as the UK has got to aim for a low volume high value export future) and a long way down the line come the hoi polloi like you and me.
Individuals on business trips aren't going to be attracted to Heathrow from more than an hour away, when international flights are readily available elsewhere, nor are tourists.  Its all about the international "stop-over" flyer and export needs.

So, access from Oxford isn't really the issue. (how many places can't you get to from Birmingham International?)   The issue is which airport has the international reputation and the trust of international airlines on which massive expansion can be built?

Iain42

OK, there is no doubt, I was trying to be polite.  Heathrow can be bad to get to, but Gatwick is a pig!  It's almost on the south coast!

Sve

Spot on, if Heathrow wants to continue to be the major European hub it needs another runway, Schiphol, Frankfurt & Paris are all trying to take business away from Heathrow and to be that central European hub.

Cliff

Its about you and me and business and exports!
I know you are trying to make out that the business = the bogey man!

But it is also for British travellers who want to travel on international routes, they will have to travel to a hub first to pick up the international flight. The northern towns are using Amsterdam usually limiting you to KLM. We should have our hub so we use a loval airline first and pick up and international flight.
Expansion at LHR is always about 20 years behind due to protests etc. It is not well connected with London, links are poor, even though its a stones throw away. Its either Paddington, which is not central London, or the tube (50m-1hr stopping at lots of local commuter stations).

Time to stop putting sticking plasters on Heathrow and start again. The residents have always complained about the noise so we will be doing them a favour.

If Boris Island is the new, designed for the 21st century airport, lets do it.

Trollslayer

I flew KLM from Newcastle a bit years ago, shabby aircraft.
Definitely try to improve rail connections to Heathrow if that is where expansion is going.

johntheexpat

You know that I am trying to make out that the business = the bogey man.  You know more than me, then.

So which of the destinations below need you to fly to a hub, rather than being out of range of modern aircraft from UK airports?
Passengers at UK airports increase for the fourth year in a row | CAA Newsroom | About the CAA

Top 20 origin/destination countries flown to and from UK airports in 2014
• Spain (inc Balearic and Canary Islands) 34,265,349 passengers
• USA 17,869603
• Germany        12,485818
• Italy 11,920740
• France 10,664689
• Republic or Ireland 10,435227
• Netherlands 8,749231
• United Arab Emirates 6,223650
• Portugal (inc Madeira) 6,103192
• Switzerland 6,099107
• Turkey 5,734943
• Greece 5,608616
• Poland 5,206380
• Canada 3,163422
• Denmark 2,977668
• Norway 2,749001
• India 2,739969
• Sweden 2,598069
• Cyprus 2,292287
• Egypt 1,991374


Of course, you could go on holiday to Europe or America via a hub.  And double the time it takes you to get there.

Heathrow: Facts and figures
Percentage of transfer passengers in 2014: 36% (26.3 million)
There seems to be some debate about whether this is a rising or falling trend.

So, why would anyone want to encourage more British based passengers to go to Heathrow, when all that would do is extend the journey time to most destinations?


Perhaps this comment (from an admittedly quite "anti" article in the FT) is getting closer to the truth:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3fae602e-1fd7-11e5-ab0f-6bb9974f25d0.html#axzz3ewHTKSox


So why has Heathrow fought so hard for a new runway? Easy. It wants to stifle competition. The airport is a cash cow, but slightly less so since the Competition Commission forced it to divest ownership of Gatwick. London’s second airport has been transformed by the break-up, but a third runway, the Airports Commission acknowledges, would divert back to Heathrow traffic from London’s other airports. The owners would regain a near monopoly.

[email protected][/url] to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3fae602e-1fd7-11e5-ab0f-6bb9974f25d0.html#ixzz3ewHwVrNHSo why has Heathrow fought so hard for a new runway? Easy. It wants to stifle competition. The airport is a cash cow, but slightly less so since the Competition Commission forced it to divest ownership of Gatwick. London’s second airport has been transformed by the break-up, but a third runway, the Airports Commission acknowledges, would divert back to Heathrow traffic from London’s other airports. The owners would regain a near monopoly. >>

Cliff

I think you are missing the whole point of the hub. Say you want to fly the Dubai, it is impossible for Emirates to fly to every local airport in Britain. Same with BA.

Maybe you live in Devon and you want to fly to Nairobi. Do you expect regular flights to Exeter even though only 3 people fly there every month?
Then multiply that with every destination around the world and every one flies to you local airport? Not possible.

Charter flights succeed because they are a-b destinations. So if you know you have x customers in Devon going on holiday to Tenerife today, its easy.

That's why, even a big airport like Gatwick doesn't work well as a hub because it doesn't have connecting flights with the rest of Britain.

johntheexpat

And conversely, I think you are missing the point.  The huge majority of British flyers don't need to fly through a hub.  Modern planes can and do get them directly to where they want to go without the need for a change.
Expanding Heathrow is a huge gamble in that it depends on the rest of Europe and the Middle east believing in the Heathrow dream.  Local airports can cope with the demand for most foreign travel and will expand to cope with extra demand.  The question is, is there enough "hub" business to expand Heathrow and will that business come to the UK?

Ask yourself this.  Would you prefer to get to your destination in one hop, but you can't say at what time you would fly, or would you prefer to fly at whatever time you want, even if it means an extra 8 hours getting to your local airport, flying to Heathrow, changing flights and getting off the ground at Heathrow?