|
BA/IAG CEO Willie Walsh Describes LHR As 'rip-off'
Why London Heathrow is ripping us off? Why? What a waste!!!
It is very extremely expensive. This must stop! STOP RIPPING IT OFF!!! Must save the money and makes a lower. http://www.bmmagazine.co.uk/newswire...-willie-walsh/ The chief executive of International Airlines Group — whose subsidiaries include British Airways, Iberia and Aer Lingus — insisted that airports charged “far too much” in landing fees, with the scale of charges damaging the aviation industry. Heathrow, Europe’s biggest airport, was already the worst offender, even before it was granted approval to expand, he said. |
My heart bleeds for him, just think of the extra profits/bonuses he could achieve if he could squeeze Heathrow the same way he has done his customers and staff. To paraphrase what many on here have said when people have criticised BA, if he is not happy he should chose a different airport to operate from.
|
Originally Posted by kanderson1965
(Post 25767502)
My heart bleeds for him, just think of the extra profits/bonuses he could achieve if he could squeeze Heathrow the same way he has done his customers and staff. To paraphrase what many on here have said when people have criticised BA, if he is not happy he should chose a different airport to operate from.
Well said. if LHR is such a PITA for BA why keep the vast majority of your eggs in the LHR basket ? Use the commercial force of BA to get yourself a better deal at LGW, MAN, BHX etc Or keep things at LHR as they are and when new routes come to be launched, do it at LGW cs |
In some ways it's funny how the airports were told they couldn't all be owned by one company and required to compete with one another, meantime bmi was swallowed into BA, Flybe is partially owned by BA and Aer Lingus is swallowed into IAG.
|
Originally Posted by andset1191
(Post 25767556)
In some ways it's funny how the airports were told they couldn't all be owned by one company and required to compete with one another, meantime bmi was swallowed into BA, Flybe is partially owned by BA and Aer Lingus is swallowed into IAG.
cs |
Originally Posted by cornishsimon
(Post 25767567)
Don't think IAG have a share in BE anymore.
cs |
I suspect he's comparing LHR to airports in certain areas in the world which like their airlines are state owned.
Can't see much changing. |
With the estimated costs of delivering a third runway now reportedly exceeding £18 billion, I think the CEO of the largest user of the airport is quite right to question and voice concerns over HAL's cost management given the present funding mechanism.
|
Does anyone have access to the landing fees? I'd really like to see it :cool:
I had access to YYZ landing fees several years ago: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/canad...ees-world.html It cost $11687 to land a 744 at YYZ, which is almost $34 per passenger on a 345-passenger 744! :o If LHR approaches anywhere near these figures, that does add up quite fast for BA's fleet... (yes, I know BA does not fly the 747 to YYZ.) |
Originally Posted by mattking2000
(Post 25767738)
(yes, I know BA does not fly the 747 to YYZ.)
|
It's his job to complain about it, but its also his own fault for stripping BA's operation down elsewhere. It will be a good day for us all when this current management group retires off to the sunshine.
|
Originally Posted by N830MH
(Post 25767444)
Why London Heathrow is ripping us off? Why? What a waste!!!
It is very extremely expensive. This must stop! STOP RIPPING IT OFF!!! Must save the money and makes a lower. |
Originally Posted by mattking2000
(Post 25767738)
Does anyone have access to the landing fees? I'd really like to see it :cool:
I had access to YYZ landing fees several years ago: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/canad...ees-world.html It cost $11687 to land a 744 at YYZ, which is almost $34 per passenger on a 345-passenger 744! :o If LHR approaches anywhere near these figures, that does add up quite fast for BA's fleet... (yes, I know BA does not fly the 747 to YYZ.) |
Heathrow Landing fees.
http://www.heathrow.com/file_source/...5April2014.pdf Plus you have to park the fleet...... Aircraft parking charges were last consulted upon in March 2011 and as result of that process a period of free parking was introduced to encourage more efficient use of stands. The following conditions were set through the Heathrow Conditions of Use (Schedule 5) to provide free parking (reflects 2015 prices): 3.1 The following charges for parking aircraft at the Airport: 3.1.1 Wide Bodied Aircraft 3.1.1.1 There is no charge for the first 90 minutes 3.1.1.2 Charge per 15 minutes or part thereof after the free period is:£51.26 3.1.2 Narrow Bodied Aircraft 3.1.2.1 There is no charge for the first 30 minutes 3.1.2.2 Charge per 15 minutes or part thereof after the free period is:£21.36 These charges will apply whilst the aircraft is parked on areas designated as Airport parking areas, whether the aircraft is secured to the ground or to a structure on the Airport or is left on the ground unsecured. 3.2 Parking is free between the hours of 2200 and 0559 UTC (GMT) from 1 April to 31 March. ... 3.4 Parking charges will be applied from Chocks On to Chocks Off. 3.5 In this paragraph 3 (Parking Charges): 3.5.1 Wide Bodied Aircraft shall include aircraft with the following classifications 332, 333, 343, 346, 358, 359, 351, 388, 744, 763, 764, 772, 74Y, 76B, 77A, 77W, 788, 789; and 3.5.2 Narrow Bodied Aircraft shall include aircraft with the following classifications 100, 318, 319, 320, 321, 733, 738, 73G, AT5, AT7, CR7, E90, E95, ER3, ER4, F70, M81, 75W, 752. Heathrow believes that the free parking period promotes fast aircraft turnarounds and encourages the most efficient use of stands. Heathrow is not proposing any changes to current parking charging structure. |
Originally Posted by Dave Noble
(Post 25768187)
says the representative of a company ripping people off with surcharges
|
""Mr Walsh also said that any newly enlarged Heathrow risked lying empty because airlines would refuse to pay higher charges.""
Hmmmm..... |
I don't think my violin is small enough in this case. Boo hoo hoo waaaaah.
All the eggs are in the LHR basket through choice, and these fees are being passed entirely on to passengers anyway. |
Originally Posted by Prospero
(Post 25767605)
With the estimated costs of delivering a third runway now reportedly exceeding £18 billion, I think the CEO of the largest user of the airport is quite right to question and voice concerns over HAL's cost management given the present funding mechanism.
|
£17 billion (+ another £5 billion for road improvements) is a ridiculous amount of money to spend on one runway, given the new airport in Berlin cost £3.8 billion for the entire airport.
|
Originally Posted by Worcester
(Post 25769111)
£17 billion (+ another £5 billion for road improvements) is a ridiculous amount of money to spend on one runway, given the new airport in Berlin cost £3.8 billion for the entire airport.
Berlin built a new airport on an unused piece of land in the middle of nowhere disrupting (more or less) no one and nothing, but the construction of an additional runway to complement existing infrastructure requires a more delicate approach :) |
Originally Posted by Worcester
(Post 25769111)
£17 billion (+ another £5 billion for road improvements) is a ridiculous amount of money to spend on one runway, given the new airport in Berlin cost £3.8 billion for the entire airport.
|
Originally Posted by Worcester
(Post 25769111)
£17 billion (+ another £5 billion for road improvements) is a ridiculous amount of money to spend on one runway, given the new airport in Berlin cost £3.8 billion for the entire airport.
|
The thing of it is that if Heathrow and Heathrow expansion are as economically valuable as boosters claim, the market should be able to bear high landing fees and other user charges that would pay for an expansion without recourse to taxpayer funding. (And before another economist comes along mentioning externalities, I'm not convinced that's a strong argument in this case.)
Walsh I'm sure would love to have the benefits of more capacity at LHR although he probably suspects that the benefit would not be valuable enough for him to recoup the cost if that cost were 100% passed on to users. He's probably right about that, to the extent there are other underutilized airports around London that could capture even more O/D traffic than LCCs already have if LHR's fees/fares become too high. So you can't fault him for "asking" for taxpayer support as he's implicitly doing with his complaint about high user fees. That's not to say the politicians should be gullible enough to fall for it. |
Originally Posted by mattking2000
(Post 25769145)
HKG spent £13 billion to build a third runway by extending the island it's on (through reclamation of 650 hectares), in addition to improving its automated people mover system and increase efficiency of its baggage handling by over 300%. Different countries have different labour rates, material costs, staging/hoarding requirements, ground conditions, etc.
Berlin built a new airport on an unused piece of land in the middle of nowhere disrupting (more or less) no one and nothing, but the construction of an additional runway to complement existing infrastructure requires a more delicate approach :) |
It might have been cheap but Berlin's new airport isn't open, and doesn't look like it will be open for a while yet.
|
Originally Posted by srbrenna
(Post 25769228)
I wouldn't be holding Brandenburg up as a shining example of how to build an airport :p
It is very nearly the entire output of Estonia for one year. Can you image if the whole of Estonian works for the whole year 1.32 million of them beavering away every day and all they managed to produce in that year was one runway? The cost of this is more than the economic output of 88 of the worlds countries. And I don't get where the money is going, concrete costs around £120 per cubic meter, if we assume the new runway is the same area as the existing Northern runway at 3,902m x 50m and add 50% extra for the taxi ways etc, that comes out at an area of nearly 300,000 square meters. To cover that in concrete to a depth of 1 meter would cost somewhere in the region of £35 million. I know there is a lot more to the runway and they need to buy an entire village to demolish it but £17 Billion, well that's not all being spent on concrete. Am I the only one shocked by this number? Or actually shocked that we are willing to pay this amount? Don't get me wrong I think we desperately need a new runway (or two ideally) |
Where are these chandeliers he mentions?
|
Originally Posted by Worcester
(Post 25769301)
True it was well over budget, but still even after the budget overruns it was a 5th of the cost of the projected cost of 1 runway. I know it is a different location an everything but that is more the the Gross National Product of Iceland!!! On one runway. I can not see how your mind can not be blown away by this.
It is very nearly the entire output of Estonia for one year. Can you image if the whole of Estonian works for the whole year 1.32 million of them beavering away every day and all they managed to produce in that year was one runway? The cost of this is more than the economic output of 88 of the worlds countries. And I don't get where the money is going, concrete costs around £120 per cubic meter, if we assume the new runway is the same area as the existing Northern runway at 3,902m x 50m and add 50% extra for the taxi ways etc, that comes out at an area of nearly 300,000 square meters. To cover that in concrete to a depth of 1 meter would cost somewhere in the region of £35 million. I know there is a lot more to the runway and they need to buy an entire village to demolish it but £17 Billion, well that's not all being spent on concrete. Am I the only one shocked by this number? Or actually shocked that we are willing to pay this amount? Don't get me wrong I think we desperately need a new runway (or two ideally) |
BA/IAG CEO Willie Walsh Describes LHR As 'rip-off'
And building the runway over the M25
|
Originally Posted by CrazyJ82
(Post 25769244)
The thing of it is that if Heathrow and Heathrow expansion are as economically valuable as boosters claim, the market should be able to bear high landing fees and other user charges that would pay for an expansion without recourse to taxpayer funding. (And before another economist comes along mentioning externalities, I'm not convinced that's a strong argument in this case.)
Walsh I'm sure would love to have the benefits of more capacity at LHR although he probably suspects that the benefit would not be valuable enough for him to recoup the cost if that cost were 100% passed on to users. He's probably right about that, to the extent there are other underutilized airports around London that could capture even more O/D traffic than LCCs already have if LHR's fees/fares become too high. So you can't fault him for "asking" for taxpayer support as he's implicitly doing with his complaint about high user fees. That's not to say the politicians should be gullible enough to fall for it. |
Originally Posted by winchpete
(Post 25769337)
Walsh only wants more capacity if it is reserved for BA. The last thing he wants is a risk of having a lot more competition in his own back yard.
|
Beijing’s major expansion was completed at a reported cost of US$3.5bn - this included a third runway, a new underground rail link, and Terminal 3. Granted, it was commissioned, approved, designed, built, and opened in the space of 4 years (a timescale impossible to achieve in the UK).
£17bn is a staggering figure. |
Originally Posted by Prospero
(Post 25769366)
£17bn is a staggering figure. Oh thank god, I thought I was the only one. |
£17bn is indeed a huge number - I don't think anyone can disagree. Do we have any detail of how they arrived at this figure? Or how they can easily add billions to the previous estimate?
|
He he he BAA must have been taking notice when WW brags to institutional investors that BA's dominance at LHR is a major competitive advantage because "the vast majority of business travellers want to fly into Heathrow." :D
|
Originally Posted by Worcester
(Post 25769111)
£17 billion (+ another £5 billion for road improvements) is a ridiculous amount of money to spend on one runway, given the new airport in Berlin cost £3.8 billion for the entire airport.
|
£17Bn is staggering - and the £5Bn for road improvements even more.
See costs here for roads: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13924687 £694m for the Glasgow M74 extension: £86.5k per metre. £155k per metre for the A3 tunnel and..... wait for it........ £250k per metre in today's money for London Dockland's Limehouse Link! |
Originally Posted by nobbyclark
(Post 25769482)
Exactly, for that amount of money we should get a whole new airport, if not two. £17bn for a bit of tarmac, wiring, road markings and sundries is ridiculous. Would love to see the estimates that add up to this figure.
As an example, work on the midfield concourse in HKG was under design, there was a huge unforeseen problem: groundwater hydrostatic pressure uplift. The cheapest solution found was to install several hundred steel tension anchors at a <confidential> price underneath the building. Is it visible to a user of the airport? no. Is it detailed in press releases? no. Does it benefit the traveller like champagne does? no. Is it vital? yes, otherwise the floor of the concourse would bow up from under you. The breakdown of the Heathrow north-west third runway is much more than "a bit of tarmac, wiring, road markings, and sundries". In fact, it takes up approximately ~1% of the cost. This obviously isn't final, but it gives an idea of the distribution of that kind of money: http://i.imgur.com/xcISrIX.png Graphic source: https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...nal-report.pdf |
Originally Posted by nobbyclark
(Post 25769482)
Exactly, for that amount of money we should get a whole new airport, if not two. £17bn for a bit of tarmac, wiring, road markings and sundries is ridiculous. Would love to see the estimates that add up to this figure.
|
Originally Posted by kanderson1965
(Post 25769591)
Add in the cost of public inquires, judicial reviews of said enquires, environmental impact reviews etc and it will add up to a bit more than the material costs.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 6:17 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.