Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Destinations > Europe > U.K. and Ireland
Reload this Page >

Heathrow 'to extend overnight curfew to 0530am'

Heathrow 'to extend overnight curfew to 0530am'

Old May 11, 16, 1:58 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London N8
Programs: BA (LTG), Miles&More (whatever the lowest level is), Oyster card (zones 1-2)
Posts: 675
Heathrow 'to extend overnight curfew to 0530am'

Just seen on the BBC that Heathrow have offered to move the overnight curfew from 0430 to 0530 to try to get the third runway through.

An even later departure for the ex HK etc flights then.

(sorry, cant post link from where I am)
ScruttonStreet is offline  
Old May 11, 16, 2:10 am
  #2  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: London
Programs: BAEC GGL/CCR, HH Diamond
Posts: 1,538
Will this put a pressure on slots? Or will more be freed up at other times of the day?
ENTP is online now  
Old May 11, 16, 2:34 am
  #3  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: somewhere north of London, UK
Programs: HH Gold, BA Silver, Accor Silver
Posts: 15,243
Presumably it would take effect from whenever the 3rd runway opens...
Swiss Tony is offline  
Old May 11, 16, 3:47 am
  #4  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,498
Which is never

Seriously, the LHR boss is scraping the barrel a little with this one as they know the sentiment is growing for Gatwick.

Major cities can work with multiple hub airports - just look at New York.
London_traveller is offline  
Old May 11, 16, 4:24 am
  #5  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Kent, UK
Programs: BA Exec Club Gold, TK Elite, Dragonpass, HH Silver
Posts: 57
The US has multiple hub airlines in different alliances. The UK does not. LGW and LHR would only work in tandem if there was a second airline doing at LGW what UA do at EWR.
davehammer is offline  
Old May 11, 16, 4:44 am
  #6  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brighton. UK
Programs: BA Silver / VS /IHG Spire & Ambassador
Posts: 11,870
Here is the report from the BBC
UKtravelbear is offline  
Old May 11, 16, 4:52 am
  #7  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brighton. UK
Programs: BA Silver / VS /IHG Spire & Ambassador
Posts: 11,870
Originally Posted by davehammer View Post
The US has multiple hub airlines in different alliances. The UK does not. LGW and LHR would only work in tandem if there was a second airline doing at LGW what UA do at EWR.
UA is THE airline of EWR with over 70% of passengers. DL has 5%

That's even more dominant that BA is at LHR or Easy Jet is at LGW
UKtravelbear is offline  
Old May 11, 16, 5:22 am
  #8  
FlyerTalk Evangelist & Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 16,795
Originally Posted by London_traveller View Post
Major cities can work with multiple hub airports - just look at New York.
How often do you connect between EWR and JFK?

It is not a pleasant experience.
Calchas is offline  
Old May 11, 16, 5:37 am
  #9  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 90,926
Originally Posted by Calchas View Post
How often do you connect between EWR and JFK?

It is not a pleasant experience.
I do it on average about once a month. It's not that bad when it saves me a good chunk of money and/or time.

Most passengers flying into the area to go into/out of Manhattan can nearly as easily get to Manhattan from EWR as from JFK.
GUWonder is offline  
Old May 11, 16, 6:31 am
  #10  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,498
It wasn't so much about connecting across airports, but to dispel the notion that major cities can *only* operate with a single large hub, like the oft-cited AMS with its five runways. The difference, as we know, is London attracts a massive amount of O&D or point-to-point air travel, in addition to connecting passengers. In that sense, New York is a better comparison.

Even with connections you can well see long haul destinations connecting into an enlarged LGW, e.g. OW airlines, for European connections with BA, which would today go via LHR. The launch of the CX route into LGW is a sign of that. I also think the liberation of the market would see BA increasing regional UK services into LGW to support better connections; the capacity will allow them to.

If Transport for London take another look at Crossrail 2 proposals and consider a southern extension to LGW, so there's a high speed rail service into the centre of London, I think Gatwick becomes a slam-dunk, as it were.

The Heathrow boss is grappling at straws with the curfew; it won't address the massive issue with road traffic around LHR - the thing that's causing pollution problems.

Also, much more selfishly, I live in north London and the LHR proposals would result in more aircraft routing overhead with minimum heights at 4,000ft rather than 6,000ft today. The additional noise from LHR would be a massive blight on much of London - not just those on the final approach to LHR.
London_traveller is offline  
Old May 11, 16, 6:57 am
  #11  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,641
It has to be a runway at Gatwick in the short term, coupled with increase in stands and a full taxiway at LCY and a proper transport link to Stansted to help the Poor go on holiday.

Why build another runway (and terminal) on some of the most expensive brownfield land in the country, with significant engineering complexity (re-routing the M4) for a shortened runway which is closed 25% of the time and which faces massive political opposition both from residents of West London, a main user (BA) who would both refuse to pay increased landing fees to fund it and would lose out through reduction in the value of its increasingly monetised slot portfolio, as well as meddling EU environmental restrictions?

Not to mention the issue of where all the new employees this expansion would necessitate would be housed....?

Heathrow just doesn't stack up - a longer term solution which meets our needs to 2050 and beyond is needed.
oscietra is offline  
Old May 11, 16, 7:48 am
  #12  
FlyerTalk Evangelist & Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 16,795
Originally Posted by London_traveller View Post
Even with connections you can well see long haul destinations connecting into an enlarged LGW, e.g. OW airlines, for European connections with BA, which would today go via LHR. The launch of the CX route into LGW is a sign of that. I also think the liberation of the market would see BA increasing regional UK services into LGW to support better connections; the capacity will allow them to.
There is capacity at LGW for more domestic flights, but BA does not seem to find it profitable to expand it. It recently axed LGW-MAN, whereas LHR-MAN is one of its most frequent services.

What I can see is moving say Sky Team and Star over to LGW with a second runway and improved ground transport, and moving all of BA's operations to LHR. But airlines paid a lot of money for their Heathrow slots, so they are unlikely to be willingly dispossessed of them.

I do suspect that most of the recent longhaul growth at LGW is because of slot shortages at LHR rather than the attractiveness of LGW itself.
Calchas is offline  
Old May 11, 16, 8:08 am
  #13  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NYC
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold, Hertz PC, National Exec
Posts: 6,712
deleted
cestmoi123 is offline  
Old May 11, 16, 9:30 am
  #14  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,498
Originally Posted by Calchas View Post
I do suspect that most of the recent longhaul growth at LGW is because of slot shortages at LHR rather than the attractiveness of LGW itself.
I think that's part of it. However, with a second runway, third terminal (which I think is the plan?) and improved transport links, LGW becomes much more attractive in its own right.

Like all these things, success begets success, so an 'attractive' LGW will change airlines' attitude towards it. And help break the monopolistic strangle BA has on LHR, which is never good for passengers.
London_traveller is offline  
Old May 11, 16, 10:01 am
  #15  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SE1, London
Posts: 21,968
Gatwick is in the wrong place - much like the pipe dream London estuary plans. Heathrow is better located for much of London, the South East and the rest of the country not to mention the industry clusters that chose to be close to it.
Swanhunter is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: