JDiver

In addition to connecting transport issues, I am wondering how it will affect AA (or, we ship this thread to oneworld or ?) - will AA increase flights to MAD to the really nice variety of connections available with IB? Will AA ultimately reduce some flights to LHR? Obviously, this is some time out, and we are speculating, but a hub is a hub by any other name, and LHR is a but congested and restrained from much further growth. AAers can connect to CAI, JNB et al at LHR, but we can also at MAD.

Though the connections to land are not brilliant currently at MAD, with the new Cercanías connections to Atocha and Chamartín might be useful indeed? jcelio, ¿que opinas? whaddayathink? imagineertobe, I was thinking of the CDG Express. indeed.

Thunderroad

Though a real long shot that I imagine BA and AA would not take into consideration at this time, one other potential factor is what happens with Iceland's volcanoes. If the one that's currently bubbling away dies down in a year or two, as has been the past pattern, it's not big deal in terms of airlines' long-term planning. But if that one or the other relatively close Icelandic volcano that's caused greater damage in the past becomes more of a long-term fixture, MAD becomes that much more appealing than LHR by virtue of its greater distance.

imagineertobe

Well, couldn't BA operate services MAD-US under the EU-US open skies agreement? They could double up on routes like AA and BA do now to/from LHR, sharing the responsibility for coverage. That would be a big draw for me, especially if the TATL earning restrictions were abolished - getting BA service without their issue-filled hub. ^

JDiver

Given the BA-IB merger, I think we may see some blurring (and lots more flexibility) in the future - those flights with F cabin sales, BA metal; those not requiring 747-380 class a/c, maybe IB - as long as we are talking about MAD.

Selfishly, I am awaiting a LAX-MAD flight... once again (they used to operate some years ago).

malcolmkettering

Seems like a huge waste of billions of pounds to have high-speed underneath London. The distances aren't that great. Feltham Station is very close to the edge of LHR property. Seems like a reasonable and much cheaper solution is to build a spur line from Feltham to T123 and T5 and have dedicated standard trains running from there to Clapham Junction with space for luggage, low-floors, etc.

Clapham Junction is London's busiest rail station I believe so connections could be made there for just about anywhere, including Gatwick. Some money could be spent to streamline services and connections at Clapham - without creating a new monument to fiscal euphoria like St. Pancras - by simply building more sheltered waiting areas, some escalators and elevators and better signage and smarter co-location of transfer platforms.

IC6A

Clapham JCT is mainly serving suburb, South UK and Southwest UK. It is lack of connection or non-stop towards Northern UK. The only connection to North of Thames is Overground train via Shepherds' Bush towards Watford. But it is very slow tracks and not designed for high speed trains. The connection between that track and Southwest/South/Waterloo etc is not very good. The station itself is not the sort of station like St Pancras nor Waterloo. It is like a giant local rail station with multiple platforms. No check-in facility nor luggage facilities like what you see in Victoria. They are putting elevators now but will be small in size and each platform will only have one. Walk between Platform 5 to Platform 13 can take ages on the aging skybridge. The station ground transportation system is awful and require travellers to plan ahead very carefully as there are multiple street connections. It would cost more to transform Clapham JCT rather than building a new railway link. Not to mention high cost on health and Safety investment and environment implication cost required by nowadays's UK government to plan for this project. It is just not visible to redeign Clapham.

Crossrail is more like the commuter train and it is not high speed rail per se. It has more than 20 stops on its way.

BahrainLad

There is already a project to link the southern rail lines to LHR. There are spare platforms for it built at T5 already. It's called the 'Airtrack' project and the line runs west from Heathrow and then south, and back east again towards Staines. It will allow services from London Waterloo through Clapham Junction out to LHR, and allow the Heathrow Express to be extended from T5 through to Staines, which will provide further connections to Reading and back into London.

Whether it will be built in the current environment of public sector austerity in the UK is another question however.

tenn_ace

What;s wrrong with the tube? St.Pancras is only a few stops away from Paddington and is on the same line. Tube is far more convenient than any of the public transport in any US city.

bernardd

I still think there's a quicker, cheaper solution - the line from Clapham to Watford that's used by dual standard (ie overhead & third rail) electrified service from Brighton to Milton Keynes (?) and beyond crosses over the Great Western / Heathrow Express tracks. How complicated can it be to link those two? That would give us electrified service from LHR to LGW, a shuttle service to connect with the west coast mainline at Watford and with a bit more work from LHR to the Eurostar / Stratford and even STN. OK, I realize there are capacity issues on the Brighton line, and around West Brompton / Earls Court but surely those are cheaper, quicker & easier to fix than a hard-to-justify new tunnel into LHR from the south west and weak services to Waterloo?

bernardd

The simple answer is neither the trains, platforms or escalators are built for luggage. It works if you're fit, healthy and have nothing bigger than a roll aboard.

Even if you can cope with the tube, it's not the product of joined up transport planning. The UK Government would dearly love to get rid of domestic air services in favour of high speed trains but who wants to drag their baggage on and off trains to get to a mainline station? Either the trains have to go to LHR in the same way as they go to CDG or the interchanges have to be radically improved.

miamigrad

+1

And the endless number of steps in many of the stations! What a workout...

imagineertobe

With all due respect, you've clearly never been a Washington-based flyer!

Attempting to get back on-topic a little, I think AA might have to consider adding an AC to MAD and/or convincing Iberia to up the services in their lounges. Does IB have showers in them? Certainly the salas aren't up to the AC or Galleries level.

jcelio

I am BCN based and believe me I HATE IBERIA... but the lounges in MAD are far much better than any AC and Flagship Lounge in the US at least... and yes there are showers and the food quality it is better agree not as good as the BA first lounge LHR...

CO FF

SJU, BOS & IAD are not AA "cornerpost" (which is 2020-speak for hub/focus city) cities. I had forgotten that AA serves MAD ex-JFK, though...

But none of that gets to the question of whether LAX-MAD gets added, and if so, whether by AA or BA/IB...

MAH4546

I am told both MIA-BCN and LAX-MAD are in the cards, Iberia-operated, in 2011.

Also, I personally expect (my opinion only) that BOS/IAD-MAD will switch to AA 757s and DFW-MAD will switch to an IB 346.