It would be good to see Qatar Airways operating a daily flight from Stansted to give a OneWorld option from the Essex Aerodrome. Emirates seems to do well enough out of STN and there should be sufficient demand from the North London/M11/Cambridge corridor.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Airport expansions
- Thread starter telstarbox
- Start date
It would be good to see Qatar Airways operating a daily flight from Stansted to give a OneWorld option from the Essex Aerodrome. Emirates seems to do well enough out of STN and there should be sufficient demand from the North London/M11/Cambridge corridor.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Emirates being there and sucking up the demand is exactly why you wouldn't send flights there if you're Qatar Airways. Emirates also appeals to a different market.
I'm not so sure. Both airlines operate out of Gatwick, they are unlikely to get any more slots at Heathrow and if they do serve different markets then there should be room for both of them at Stansted.
TravelDream
Member
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2016
- Messages
- 1,165
They appeal to very similar markets.
They both heavily rely on the transit market for volume. UK <-> India/ Pakistan/ Bangladesh, UK -> Thailand, and UK <-> Australia/ NZ in particular. They both also heavily sell their 'premium' experience - both being highly mixed (middle seat in business on the Emirates 777 or one of Qatar's ancient and poorly maintained A330s anyone? (both being gradually removed before anyone complains)). Obviously there are differences. Emirates having more point to point passengers vs. connecting compared to Qatar for example.
Stansted is the closest airport to a very large and relatively well off market (North/ North East London, Essex, Cambridgeshire). Plenty of reasons they might choose to operate there.
It's all about yield and whether it would provide a decent return for them. Obviously I don't have access to Qatar's numbers, but Stansted certainly seems more viable to me than, say, a return to Cardiff where they flew for a couple of years.
Qatar appeals significantly more to high net worth individuals and wealthy family groups, corporate business and high yield traffic. They offer a very different - quite sedentary and conservative - experience to the more democratised Emirates. The passenger mix on both airlines is noticeably different.
Stansted already has Emirates. Assuming they're picking from the same pool of passengers - which they aren't in my view - do we really think the airport can support two ME3 carriers? Stansted is exactly the sort of place Qatar do *not* fly to.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
I think it depends on the cabin. But, once you get past the marketing guff, I don't actually think there's much in it.
Emirates' fares in economy are usually cheaper than Qatar's, but that seems to be a consequence of using the A380. More seats to fill means lower fares to fill them. Qatar (and Etihad) tend to use much smaller aircraft.
In premium cabins I don't think there's much difference at all. Qatar have removed lounge access from the lowest tier Business Class fares, which doesn't exactly scream "appealing to high net worth individuals" to me.
Not that I see Qatar or Etihad going to Stansted any time soon. I also have a feeling that the self-loading freight isn't the main reason why Emirates fly to Stansted; like Newcastle, it probably has more to do with what's inside the 777's enormous belly.
TravelDream
Member
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2016
- Messages
- 1,165
Emirates business class is a triumph of branding over substance. Most of their 777 fleet lack flat beds!
Qatar is certainly more grown up and mature in appearance e.g. lack of gold gilt and Arthur Daley style walnut panelling.
Qatar is certainly more grown up and mature in appearance e.g. lack of gold gilt and Arthur Daley style walnut panelling.
You’ll know better than me, but I think Qatar gets a fair amount of code share transit traffic off BA / AA into Heathrow, which obviously they wouldn’t at Stansted.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,410
Another announced delay on the Heathrow expansion project, to 2039.
Even if the project can maintain political support long enough to actually get somewhere, I am becoming sceptical that such a complex programme in such a cramped area is actually deliverable.
Even if the project can maintain political support long enough to actually get somewhere, I am becoming sceptical that such a complex programme in such a cramped area is actually deliverable.
Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
Its hardly compatible with reducing emissions anyhow so I dont know how any politician that supports Net Zero can endorse it.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,410
Well one could make an argument that consolidating airports onto a single site to maximise hub opportunities would be good.
But Heathrow would be a terrible site for that.
More realistically, politicians and people in similar socioeconomic categories like flying and are willing to go along with the idea of magical Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) appearing to save them.
Peter Sarf
Established Member
Ah yes. Bit like bionic dick weed or more like Hydrogen Fuel.....
I think this Heathrow expansion bears all the hall marks of heading the same way as HS2. Overspend by enough and take long enough and the politicians will lose interest.
It is the way with large construction projects in the UK. Is it a UK malaise ?.
dorsetmagpie
Member
The Government's own assessment released a couple of months ago, found that the benefits of the third runway amounted to a GDP impact of just 0.03%-0.05% by 2056, most of which would be concentrated in London and the south-east. https://assets.publishing.service.g.../heathrow-expansion-appraisal-report-hear.pdf
I can imagine why any government would rather kick the can down the road, rather than be the ones to make the decision; but at the same time I can't help but feel that Burnham - more than anyone in the past - now has the political capital right now to point out that it barely delivers for growth - certainly not nationally.
I can imagine why any government would rather kick the can down the road, rather than be the ones to make the decision; but at the same time I can't help but feel that Burnham - more than anyone in the past - now has the political capital right now to point out that it barely delivers for growth - certainly not nationally.
Airports all over the world are expanding and don't seem to have the same political problems with net zero.
Dunno on that, this is private sector driven isn’t it? The Government just have to decide whether to sign off on it or not AFAIK.
I’m not sure whether the economic argument is compelling or not, but it does seem a bit strange that the capacity of the UKs hub airport is throttled. I know London has a number of airports but it could really do with some consolidation. Burnham probably subscribes to the view that the regions should have better connectivity, something I can get on board with, but the market doesn’t work that way unfortunately.
A Government of a serious country would look at something like having the busiest airport in Europe as an asset that should be invested in and protected. Sadly the ragtag band of clowns running the show here (and I'm talking from both major parties here) think a reasonable course of action is to dither and delay until the top spot is usurped by Istanbul, Charles de Gaulle or Schiphol. And once it's gone, believe me, it's never coming back. Country in decline.
It may be private sector driven but they still have to deal with the antiquated UK public planning system. There are lots of jobs supported and money to be made by slowing things down with bureaucracy, consultations, appeals and redesigns.
Shrop
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2019
- Messages
- 1,365
Talk about full circle! I've always believed (and still do) that one of the main motivators for HS2 to go through the Chilterns was to run close to (or originally via) Heathrow, which would avoid the need for a third runway. (Yes, it was always convoluted reasoning but nevertheless carried weight).
And yet here we are talking about one project debacle taking for ever and a day (yes HS2 which is the laughing stock of many foreign rail engineers) cow-towing to Heathrow and yet that too, looks like becoming another laughing stock.
Now tell me this is anything other than UK malaise!
Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
France has taken a different view in restrictioning short haul internal flights and going for airport modernisations within existing land footprints.
UK also has the highest airport passenger duty in the world which is there to dissuade useage and Labour want to increase it further so that is surely incompatible with expansion.
dorsetmagpie
Member
It would be interesting to know to what extent that is a viable option with HS2 and Heathrow? @H F Stephens states in a previous post that Heathrow is not running at capacity, but has capacity issues at certain peak times. Are those peak's impacted by a number of regional flights, which could have been replaced by HS2? (I think I read recently that there are 150 flights a week between Edinburgh and Heathrow for example)
EDIT: This post by HFS on the HEX thread was interesting, but my assumption is that whilst it will optimise Heathrow's capacity, it wouldn't address the peak time runway capacity issue?
"Any properly strategic review (short of closure and relocation, but not East, South or West) would almost certainly prioritise the relocation of the fuel farm, full development and completion of the ’Toast Rack’; abandonment of the third runway proposal, along with closure and demolition of Terminal 4."
Last edited:
Well, maybe HS2 could have been part of the solution if built as originally planned but an express line between London and Birmingham isn't going to make much difference.
Plus, I suspect resurrecting the original HS2 plan to Manchester and Leeds in the next 20 years is even less likely than a Heathrow third runway.
Peter Sarf
Established Member
+
Yes. I hoped HS2 would help reduce domestic flights but dropping HS2 has increased the need for Heathrow expansion.
Really if HS2 and/or Heathrow Expansion happens at the pace that is likely then it will be too late. Once the international business has gone elsewhere in Europe then it will be very very hard to get it back. After all the places international business are going to will benefit because we have driven away such business not necessarily because the new location had to compete with a plentiful supply of capacity at Heathrow.
I really believe we in the UK are heading for :- If we do nothing then the problem will go away. Oh and the business that goes with it, the business for the UK.
Yes an industry in its own right. With that said though if it was a choice between a third runway at LHR and, say, a tunnel between Sheffield and Manchester, I’d be pushing for the tunnel. Same problems, same lengthy delays due to impact assessments, appeals etc to tbd point where a project that could be completed in 5 years would never actually get off the drawing board.
I support the protection of our natural sites of course, but there are ways and means of doing that without throwing baby out with the bathwater.
AlastairFraser
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 4,211
That's because he knows that the largest European hubs will already be firmly cemented on the continent, by the time the 3rd runway is open for business.
Cloud Strife
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 2,967
In the aviation world, this simply isn't true. Heathrow has quite a few advantages that Charles de Gaulle and Schiphol doesn't have, but the main one is population. The Heathrow catchment area is around 22-24 million people, far more than either of those. But the lack of capacity is what stops Heathrow from growing rapidly, and the UK government really should have been much more proactive in working with Heathrow to massively increase capacity without needing a third runway.
I think the problem mostly lies in that the airports aren't really collaborating with each other, but rather competing. For instance, there's really no reason for short haul European flights to go to Heathrow at in the morning between 5am and 9am. These landing slots would be far better used for long haul flights, with the short haul European flights redirected to the other London airports.
Snow1964
Veteran Member
Depends on how you define capacity, taken from CAA figures, Heathrow's passenger numbers are down for last few months
April 2026 : 6,721,740 lower than April 2025 : 7,099,310
May 2026 : 7,121,542 lower than May 2025 : 7,204,362
June 2026 : 7,227,536 lower than June 2025 : 7,359,020
July 2026 : 7,859,325 lower than July 2025 : 7,981,535
August 2026 : 7,866,719 lower than August 2025 : 8,036,159
I would guess 8m passengers per month is close to limit, especially as aircraft movements are very limited for around 7 or 8 hours per day (from about 10pm to 6am), with surge of arrivals 6am-8am
Aircraft movements (per CAA table 3) was
April 38,638 (1288 average per day)
May 40,590 (1309 per day)
June 39,415 (1314 per day)
July 41,206 (1329 per day)
August 41,569 (1341 per day)
A few of these will be positioning flights, freight aircraft etc, but around 1350 is probably the practical daily limit (less in bad weather). But clearly capacity is also a function of aircraft size. And unlike 15 years ago, now very few planes with less than about 170 seats use Heathrow.
Apparently mixing narrow body aircraft and wide bodies on same runway is quite inefficient (there are rules about how long a smaller plane must wait before following the disturbed air of a large plane), so that is why Heathrow tends to have 3 holds at start of runway, with planes grouped by size and take off in size batches (smaller planes join runway and start few hundred feet ahead of the heavies)
If a third runway was opened, (even a shorter one of about 2500m), could move the narrow body planes to it, and use the others more consistently, although Heathrow seems to be aiming for 3 full length runways that allow mixed mode on all.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
If the idea behind expanding Heathrow is to attract more people to London then this doesn't matter very much. Schiphol and Frankfurt are lovely airports I'm sure, but they're not exactly handy for London.
As I've said before, I also simply don't buy the story that connecting passengers make routes financially sustainable. Airlines love connecting passengers because they can dump excess capacity at a steep discount without affecting the yield from their hub. But the key point there is excess capacity. Airlines who can fill their planes from A to B and from A to C aren't going to be selling connecting tickets from B to C via A.
My view has long been that if the Germans and the Dutch want the environmental effects of a super-hub airport on their doorstep then they're welcome to them.
This is the issue. Heathrow is apparently at capacity but Southend, just down the road, can't give its slots away.
Of course Heathrow want to expand. Demand for their service exceeds supply. But I still remain very sceptical about how much of any additional demand at Heathrow would be genuinely new to the UK and how much of it would simply be displaced from other airports in the south east and West Midlands. The latter is great for Heathrow as a private foreign-owned business, but does it merit concreting over half of West London and creating even more noise pollution over the rest of London?
Yes, Southend would welcome extra traffic with open arms. Speaks volumes that they don’t get that interest doesn’t it. This isn’t some private hegemonic grab by the owners of Heathrow, it’s controlled by where the airlines want to go. The airlines do have options to go elsewhere, in fact it would be incredibly easy for them to as all other airports in the South East and West Midlands would be similarly accommodating. It’s the fact theyre not particularly interested in that which speaks volumes. It is not a conspiracy constructed by the owners of LHR.
Short haul carriers need those early morning slots, it’s part of the wider hub and spoke network that makes the entire operation more viable.