rdc1000The OfT investigation has been a threat since the 1980s when the Airport’s were privatised, many are asking why it has taken so long for something to happen?!
BAA control 92% of the London market by passenger figures. Whilst you are right to point out that the airports APPEAR to have their own markets you are slightly amiss. One of the problems id the greying between previously defined markets. Many full service routes now resemble LCC routes, whilst most charter carriers offer seat only sales on the same basis as LCCs. Charter carriers are in greatest numbers at LGW. Furthermore remember that easyJet’s largets UK base is London Gatwick..they’re an LCC!
And if you don’t think LHR has a strong domestic presence I suggest you look at the CAA stats, for whilst LGW may have more routes (not much in it there either), LHR handled nearly double the number of domestic passengers to LGW, and 3 times the number handled at STN.
Breaking down the airport ownership in the london market would add to competition because different owners would be able to compete not only on price but also on service offer. Currently the Airport’s are regulated so that their charges cannot get excessive, but the BAA still lives within a world where it chooses what it wants to do at its airports, look at the golden plated development they want for STN, instead of the LCC airport that the airlines want them to develop, they don’t see why they should pay for things they don’t want/need to be developed. Having another operator in the market would give them leaverage, and given that LGW would be the most likely to be sold then it may offer better competition in both markets, at least for central London.
rdc1000If I remember rightly this wasn’t a heroic battle with a cross-wind, rather they completely cocked up the approach and only just got away with it.
1L.
Yes, I think thats right. It was a regular problem, and there are loads of good photos of this sort of landing at Kai Tak on Airliners.net. One that I can think of that could be searched would be All Nippon Cargo B747. Having said that I don’t think I ever saw a Cathay aircraft in such a compromising position…so perhaps a little Kai Tak experience was also necessary! It was easy to overshoot the turn also from what I understand.
rdc1000yes but are the flights full?
Its not a case of whether the flights are full per-se, its about whether they operate with sufficient yield to make them profitable. Its easy to fill a flight to bursting if you charge £1 for every seat onboard an aircraft, the trick is being able to fill the aircraft to a reasonable level with higher fares so as to maximise the revenue generated, and this is where MAN has the advantage over near neighbours such as BLK and LPL. The yield on routes out of MAN is typically much lower than on routes from London and the south generally, however it is stronger than the other airports in the region, primairly because of the importance of Manchester itself as a business destination proping up what passengers are willing to pay. Admittedly LBA is a big business city, but the yields from there tend not to be as strong.
So what you should really be asking is “are the routes sufficiently profitable to continue operating?” Well the major point here is YES, or else they would not operate. The airline world we live in now is very different to that we lived in5-10 years ago. In the majority of cases airlines won’t operate unprofitable or low-profit routes. They will not cross subsidise because to do so they must make extra profits elesewhere, which then leaves their money earning routes open to LCC competition (ooooh…I’m straying into economic theory now, my favourite topic LOL). For low profit routes the airlines are more likely to cancel the flight in favour of better using their resources. If they could afford to go out and buy aircraft to operate every possible route then I’m sure they would, but so long as aircraft are a tad expensive then they’ll not buy so many and instead use them on the most profitable routes they can.
Teh exceptions here ironically include MAS and BWIA dropping servies, they’ve never made great money on the routes and it has taken them until now to do anything about it. At the end of the day though these two airlines are notorious for their lose-making, so this is part of their strategies to match what other major carriers have been doing since September 2001.
As for the claim on PPrune that MAN is a shopping centre with an runway my answer would be “yes, and which succesful airport isn’t?”. Take LHR for example, it would be a loss making concern if it were not for its retail offer. Stockholm Arlanda was one of the first to really term themselves a shopping mall with a runway in the mid 90s. The fact of the matter is that most airports make money through retail, not aircraft charges! If the same people on PPRUNE think that BLK is a profit making airport then they need to think again. The whole point of MANs competitors trying so desperately to attract airlines is to bring through sufficient traffic to sustain a good retail offer. Remember in many cases regional airports are charging very little or nothing for LCCs to land, so where do they make their money from? The aim of all airports is to increase retail, but to do this they must have respectable passenger figures to attract the shops in. The benchmark is a 2mppa airport before you can seek concessions for retail.
If the PPRUNE guys are that concerned about the retail offer at MAN then they shoudl consider this….Micheal O’Leary has a dream that one day airports will not charge anything for landing, and passengers will not pay anything for their flights, why? Well because the retail malls with runways will make all of their money from retail and will pay the airliens to offer free flights to bring passengers to THEIR shopping centres.
Basically I wouldn’t bother with PPRune, I’ve very rarely seen anyone make any sense on there! It was good when it was almost only pilots and operational issues, but its got a bit carried away now!
rdc1000I can just imagine what would happen if EK did get BA.
All flights would be via Dubai!LHR-Dubai-Paris!
LOL, yes, Dubai would become the new Atlanta! In the US there is a running joke that even when you die, you must chnage in ATL on your way to heaven!
rdc1000I have a nasty habit of this! And I always quickly trawl! LOL. Anyway, more information anyway, and the answer to Wozza’s question!
rdc1000I wasn’t aware Heathrow had any one way taxiways!
LOL, next time you’re there you really must keep an eye out for them, at one end they have jumbo sized blue signs with a white arrow on and at the other they ahve jumbo sized red circular signs with a white line through..unmissable :diablo:
rdc1000And we call these things A e r o p l a n e s, pepole fly on them
I could make a controversial statement regarding airport security staff.. :dev2:
rdc1000Strangely enough, all those airlines prior to BA’s “suggestions” once they decided to become “best buddies” would appear to have been quite okay with MAN ops. Just coincidence that they pull out as soon as they come to commericial agreements with BA? When CX pulled out, they admitted they were more interested in promoting the MAN-LHR-HKG sector through BA codeshares than their own MAN-HKG service!
You are right, BA did pursuade Qantas to drop MAN and I’m sure CX were keen on using the MAN-LHR link, but there are two major points here:
1) That is the whole point of alliances, CX saw an opportunity to use its partner, and it has done so;
2) The yield per passenger out of MAN is notoriously weak compared to other UK and international airports, consequently, airlines struggle to make some routes work well. In the case of Cathay they withdrew from MAN following a worldwide downturn in traffic which put increased pressure on their yields on this route. They could not relaistically sustain operations, regardless of whether BA was involved. The advantage they had was that they could continue to have some market presence because they happen to be “in bed” with BA.
I believe BA operated the MAN-ISB sector for at least a couple of years after T1BA was opened. Enough time for them to have introduced the 777 and perhaps enhance the bottom line, as well as increasing available capacity? It’s not as though demand collapsed….it’s almost as though they “willed” the route to die.
Intrestingly the Pakistan market has always been difficult for BA and other European Airlines. Most of the traffic on these routes is ethnically linked, whether it be for business or for VFR (visiting friends and relatives) and it is the latter which is the largest sole market on these routes. Most travellers on thsi route actually prefer flying with PIA, which they see as their national airline, even if they actually live in the UK. This is why PIA has such a strong presence at MAN in the first place. It has always been difficult for all the other airlines to tap into this market in any substantial way. Furthermore the yield on these routes is very poor, and regardless of how well we cost cut in Europe, it is very difficult to produce a seat at the same cost as an airline like PIA. BA did have a strong presence at one time on the route, but the growth of PIA was always going to put them under pressure because as stated, most people would fly BA as second choice, and only if they couldn’t get on a PIA flight. Therefore BA made a good strategic decision to drop the route. The days have gone when an airline should and could operate a route unprofitably or at least with very little return.
Also don’t forget that strategies change, and the fact that BA repeatedly does so is what has helped it regain its status as the worlds most profitable airline! It would be ridiculous business sense to operate a route simply because two years earlier a commitment had been shown to it, even if circumstances had changed!!!
LH have admitted to at least 10% of their MAN pax flying business class long-haul. I wonder just how many KL and AF fly. Pity BA seem to be quite unable find them when doing market research
Again it comes down to the issue of yield, and in actual fact BA are in just the same market!!! On services from FRA and MUC, LH have already got strong yielding home markets, they can then supplement this with low yield connecting traffic because they have already made their money from the home market, and any extra income is only a bonus then. This is exactly the same as BA, they have a strong yielding market at LHR and when they offer connections from MAN they are simply adding bonus passengers to their flights, the same applies for AF. The same could not be said for many routes from MAN, which would be low yield and difficult to make a return on if direct. The one airline that differs here slightly is KLM, but then they’re in a more difficult market as Holland isn’t so high-yielding, and therefore they have purposefuly set out to be a feeder airline, they accept the low yields because that is the only market they have, but then don’t forget that they only manage this by having a very widespread feeder network.
At the end fo the day it all comes down to YIELD. If the airliens can’t make enough money per passenger then they will not operate a direct service, instead they will choose to serve a market in another way.
rdc1000“I tell you, he went in there…the little man went in there!!”
rdc1000bmi-star…you’re talking nonesense!
rdc1000I think you need to actually do some market research first..use some CAA survey data to look at travel patterns to determine how and where you could enter the market. Don’t start thinking about aircraft yet…that should be among the last things you consider…you need to get the business plan right and then look at the operational issues to slot into the business plan to hopefully be in a position to go forward for funding, unless your ‘business partner’ is from a Greek shipping family (and called Stelios!) then you will need a robust business plan to raise the cash in the first place….and no airline will go anywhere without a decent sum of money behind them. If you’d like some CAA analysis done…… 😉
rdc1000Actually 737dude from a nuisance perpective most residents living near airports prefer commercial aircraft to light aircraft. Commmercial jets have a far higher rate of climb and move much faster, therefore they are a momentary nuisance. Light aircraft don’t tend to climb so fast, take longer to fly out and tend to be used for circuits which annoy local residents. So overall some aircraft will be noisier, but in fact the nuisance level may be less by moving more to commercial ops. BUT remember that the airport would need to grow to a substantial size before the light aircraft were actually squeezed out at all anyway.
In terms of whether BLK can grow to LPL’s size, the answer is ‘unlikely’. It has a good location in that it is pretty much at the end of a motorway which makes it easily accesible, and the mindset of LCC travellers is that they’ll happily travel in their cars for a further 45 mins if the flight is cheaper. In addition BLK has a wide catchment area covering lancashire and even southern Cumbria. BUT, it does not have the space to expand to the scale of LPL. The apron space is currently constrained, but development of this may be hindered by its location as much of the site falls within Greenbelt and Fylde may eb unlikely to allow sufficient development on the site to accomodate excessive growth…we shall see.
rdc1000T4 will have some compliant stands, T3 has had a new pier built for A380s. Pier 6 at T3 has 4 stands specifically designed for the aircraft (and they can also be used for narrowbodies), but anyway, hers the answer I think…although I have a recollection of any updated plan, but here’s the old plan….
Heathrow to be rejigged for A380
Airline Business (Mar2005, 285 words)London Heathrow operator BAA has outlined its plan for the airport after the opening of Terminal 5, as it prepares to accommodate the needs of the three major alliances and the Airbus A380. “When Terminal 5 comes online in 2008, we are facing the relocating of 40 airlines,” says BAA business and strategic development director Eryl Smith.
The key to the shake-up is the relocation of British Airways from Terminal 1 and Terminal 4 to Terminal 5, which is due to take place “overnight” when the new terminal opens in the second quarter of 2008. Terminal 5, along with Terminal 3, will become the BA/oneworld alliance hub for Heathrow. The displacement will free Terminal 1 for the progressive relocation of all the Star Alliance-aligned carriers, says Smith, while SkyTeam alliance members will congregate at Terminal 4.
Terminal 3 will also be used by other non-aligned carriers, such as the incumbent Virgin Atlantic, says Smith, while Terminal 4 could provide capacity for any future Heathrow long-haul operators that, for example, gain access to the airport through a Europe-US Open Skies deal.
As part of adaptations for the A380, several piers in Heathrow’s central area are being truncated in conjunction with the repositioning of taxiways – including one of Terminal 2’s two fingers. This development, combined with the increasing demand for larger aircraft stands, “will greatly constrain Terminal 2’s apron”, says Smith, meaning that “the existing concept of three individual central area terminals will change”.
Modifications are well advanced to accommodate the A380, with an all-new four-contact gate pier under construction at Terminal 3 and two stands to be modified at Terminal 4. These will be ready for the A380 when services begin in mid-2006.
MAX KINGSLEY-JONES LONDON
Source: Airline Business
rdc1000There were 3 crashes, and despite the number of rotations made by the B737, 3 crashes is 3 too many and it would be fair to say that the problem was not ‘minor’ it was large then, taking up years of investigators time.
I once read that somewhere in the world there is a 737 rotating every 3 seconds (it may have been sightly more but in that order of magnitude), and so in actual fact 3 accidents isn’t bad at all (although of course these are 3 accidents related to one problem). The fact of the matter is aircraft will crash, and its about risk levels, rather than eliminating risk altogether. If you’d like a perfectly safe plane then kiss good bye to flying, because whilst it may be possible for Boeing or Airbus to do such, the costs involved would be so prohibative that it would push development costs so high that the airlines would have to charge ridiculous fares, leaving only the top fare paying passengers able to travel.
rdc1000OMG…QUIT IT!!!! ARGH!!!!
Sign In
