Travel News - Heathrow Airport is a 'second tier' hub, says BAA chairman

From the Telegraph:

Sir Nigel Rudd, chairman of BAA, has admitted for the first time that Heathrow is now a "second tier" world airport as a result of the Government's decision not to grant a third runway to the UK's busiest airport.

The airport chief said that the UK risked becoming "less competitive" as a result of the decision, one of the first made by the coalition Government after it came to power in May.

"Heathrow is full," he said. "I am a strong believer in democracy, and the Government has been elected on the basis that there is no third runway.

"The question I want answering is, if there is going to be no third runway, and no more in the South East of England, how does the nation cope with the fact that we're going to receive an ever decreasing share of international passengers as all the other major international airports are expanding?"

Heathrow Airport is a 'second tier' hub, says BAA chairman (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/8025246/Heathrow-Airport-is-a-second-tier-hub-says-BAA-chairman.html)

There is also a comment piece:

Heathrow should be one of our major gateways to the globalised world – a precious stone in our economic crown. We are in danger of being left with a paste diamond. And in a world where people and capital can move quickly to those places most supportive of economic growth, we are risking – through the very British disease of benign neglect – a once world-beating asset.

Heathrow airport: a very dangerous signal indeed (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/kamal-ahmed/8025115/Heathrow-airport-a-very-dangerous-signal-indeed.html)

Thanks to BAA, LHR is a craptapular, unpleasant place to transit. I look forward to the day that the UK government kicks BAA and DfT to the curb.

He seems to have missed the part about the :eek:utrageous UK passenger taxes.

LHR is to big already and no need more connecting passengers.

He seems to have missed the part about the :eek:utrageous UK passenger taxes.

I was just looking at a November itinerary SFO-LHR in coach and total taxes are up to $199 now, and that's before the extra charge if I try to upgrade to business for the trip home.

I was just looking at a November itinerary SFO-LHR in coach and total taxes are up to $199 now, and that's before the extra charge if I try to upgrade to business for the trip home.
I look fondly on the days when I was only paying the equivalent of $199 for coach-class taxes when departing the UK.

And in the UK, fuel surchages are allowed on award tickets.
I've paid $600 to fly from the US to LHR on a supposedly "free" ticket

LHR is a joke, I will NEVER connect thru there I have O&D there once and I decided next time I go to London I would consideirng flying to MAN and taking the train down.

It would be interesting to see a cost/benefit analysis of connecting passengers at LHR against the suffering many Londoners have from all those flights. Is having a major hub a net benefit to the UK economy or just to the interests of the banks that BAA owe money to

Of course it doesn't help that London Airways requires all us provincial types to have to go through London to get overseas - and in a large number of cases we have to use the tradesmen's entrance of Gatwick to do so, paying a large sum of money to get between airports and then get loudly tutted at by check-in staff for turning up 5 minutes before check-in closes because London Airways thinks that 3 hours is a reasonable connection time

Thanks to BAA, LHR is a craptapular, unpleasant place to transit. I look forward to the day that the UK government kicks BAA and DfT to the curb.

+1E6

I have (repeatedly) told my travel agent: "I don't care about taking longer; I don't care about the cost; I don't care about losing FF points (:eek:) but I will NOT fly through LHR!"

There was an article in the Times today that the Con-Lib government is reconsidering Boris Island, as it provides a new airport, flood defence and jobs for a economically disadvantaged area (apparently the Thames estuary is "one of the most deprived parts of the country").

Greg

There was an article in the Times today that the Con-Lib government is reconsidering Boris Island, as it provides a new airport, flood defence and jobs for a economically disadvantaged area (apparently the Thames estuary is "one of the most deprived parts of the country").

Greg
Very interesting. I wonder what they plan to do about the bird sanctuaries nearby. Birds + engines = :eek:

I abhor Murdoch publications; have you found and can you post a link to this elsewhere? This has been kept awfully quiet.

There was an article in the Times today that the Con-Lib government is reconsidering Boris Island, as it provides a new airport, flood defence and jobs for a economically disadvantaged area (apparently the Thames estuary is "one of the most deprived parts of the country").

Greg
The correct phrase is Con'Dem'd government. But surely they can't be stupid enough to bring that back up. Aside from the problems with birdlife (and fog) there's the little fact that's it's a swine to get to from the other side of the Thames - do they really want to add tens of thousands of additional trips to the Dartford crossings.

Here's a simple solution - stick a really fast rail link from central London to Birmingham Airport where they'd be more than happy to be renamed "London International". Plus it will mean the rest of us wouldn't have to deal with London when flying internationally.

And in the UK, fuel surchages are allowed on award tickets.
I've paid $600 to fly from the US to LHR on a supposedly "free" ticket

That's just sad. Completely surcharge and tax happy. :td:

How much of the "LHR nightmare" is caused by BAA and how much by DfT/UK government?

eg, How much is because BAA wants to do it that way and how much because they have to do it that way?

+1E6

I have (repeatedly) told my travel agent: "I don't care about taking longer; I don't care about the cost; I don't care about losing FF points (:eek:) but I will NOT fly through LHR!"

That makes two of us, I convey the same message to my travel agent all the time. I avoid LHR and LGW like the Plague, I would much rather transit through AMS even traveling up to ABZ; I also prefer FRA.

How much of the "LHR nightmare" is caused by BAA and how much by DfT/UK government?

eg, How much is because BAA wants to do it that way and how much because they have to do it that way?
Neither, most of it is because LHR is in the wrong place. Where else would you have the main flightpath into a city be over the city itself. This means you have several million people "interested" in changes at LHR as it's their lives that get disrupted 18 hours a day 7 days a week. If it had been to the north or south of London rather than the west then many of the problems would have been avoided

LHR needs to be replaced but the problem, like everything else in SE England, is where to put it as invariably you end up with a bunch of other people upset. You also have the problem of the infrastructure that has evolved round LHR to support LHR, what do you do with that if you move LHR.

The solutions have to be a lot more inventive that "building another runway" or Boris's Duck Island solution.