Heathrow 'to extend overnight curfew to 0530am'
May 11, 2016, 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: 891
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)
An even later departure for the ex HK etc flights then.
(sorry, cant post link from where I am)
May 11, 2016, 4:24 am
#5
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Kent, UK
Programs: BA Exec Club Gold, TK Elite, Dragonpass, HH Silver
Posts: 61
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.
May 11, 2016, 4:52 am
#7
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brighton. UK
Programs: BA Gold / VS /IHG Diamond & Ambassador
Posts: 14,195
That's even more dominant that BA is at LHR or Easy Jet is at LGW
May 11, 2016, 5:37 am
#9
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Most passengers flying into the area to go into/out of Manhattan can nearly as easily get to Manhattan from EWR as from JFK.
May 11, 2016, 6:31 am
#10
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,503
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.
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.
May 11, 2016, 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.
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.
May 11, 2016, 7:48 am
#12
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 17,007
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.
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.
May 11, 2016, 9:30 am
#14
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,503
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.
May 11, 2016, 10:01 am
#15
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SE1, London
Posts: 23,435
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.