Re: Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow

In message <slrng6pvqp.53k.pete@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, at 16:33:27 on Thu, 3 Jul 
2008, Peter Lynch <pete@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> remarked:

>>>If transit passengers were sent elsewhere, to an air****t with more
>>>capacity,
>>
>> But that's exactly backwards. Transit passengers need an air****t with a
>> good choice of onward flights. Have them all arriving at (say)
>> Birmingham, and that choice is vastly reduced. So they'll transit in a
>> different country.
>
>Yes, have them use a different country.

Many people make a point of trying to avoid LHR.

>I forget the numbers, but doesn't Schipol have 4 or 5 runways, and CDG 
>a similar number.

Schiphol has five main ones, but they only use about three at a time 
(because they criss-cross). CDG is really two air****ts on the same site, 
with T1 and T3 each having one main and one secondary (parallel) runway.

>How about having people
>from southern europe transiting via. Madrid? Makes more sense than having
>them come through London for their final (international) destinations..

But Madrid doesn't have as many longhaul destinations, and is therefore 
less attractive. So people put up with LHR.

>> What you actually need to do is persuade as many as possible of the
>> *non* transit passengers to use whichever other air****t might serve
>> their required destination.
>>
>>> then the slots freed up would bring in people who spent more money
>>>either as tourists or on business.
>>
>> Why do they spend money - they are trying to leave the place as quickly
>> as possible.
>
>Eh? A person flying from (say) Istanbul to New York, via London will buy
>a burger and chips while waiting for their onward flight. If that
passenger
>capacity was available to a tourist (or business person) instead, they'd
>spend money on a hotel, meals out, sightseeing etc.

I agree, but that assumes that more people will fly to the UK on 
business/holiday if there was more capacity at Heathrow. I really don't 
see that being the main determining factor.


>>>They'd still need the same number of low-paid ancillary staff (for the
>>>same number of passengers - natch) but by catering to people who
>>>actually want to come to Britain, rather than merely pass through it,
>>>the whole economy - at least in the S.E. would benefit.
>>
>> A lot of those transit passengers are actually heading for domestic
>> locations! (For example 75% of the people on BA's Manchester flights).
>
>Doesn't matter. If you're going from Birmingham to (e.g.) Cape Town, or 
>vice-versa it makes no difference to you if you change planes at LHR or 
>CDG. I.e. Birmingham to London to Cape Town, rather than Birmingham to 
>Paris to Cape Town.

It makes a big difference to BA. If you change at LHR you are much more 
likely to make that long haul flight on BA, than if you changed at CDG 
(Air France etc).

>However if you change at Heathrow, you're using up capacity that denies 
>a visitor (not a transit passsenger) a flight into London.

I don't agree with that assumption.
-- 
Roland Perry