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!
One thing that I would say is that there should probably be a blanket ban on anything smaller than an 737/A320 using Heathrow. While Loganair only have a handful of flights, it's still precious time taken up at Heathrow. I'd even go further and say that as plane capacities increase, there's a strong reason to ban anything smaller than an A321 or a 737 Max-8.
But I'm still of the opinion that flying A319s or A220s into Heathrow is a simple waste of resource. If a link can't fill at least an A320 then, quite frankly, what is the point of running it?
I'd go further and say that there should be a stated intention to ban anything smaller than an A321 or 737 Max-8 by 2030. I'd also impose a minimum load factor, effectively forcing airlines into using the capacity or lose the slot. Want to land at 12:30 into Heathrow? Then you need a 90% load factor *and* a large narrow body, or you're simply going to lose the slot to another airline. BA are flying plenty of A319s from Heathrow with a mere 144 seats, which is a complete waste of capacity.
IF they had built HS2 from Heathrow to Manchester then there would be a good case for scrapping Manchester flights. However, they did not and via OOC is not exactly the same as a single train.
Manchester Airport has a large catchment area and a Heathrow flight links that catchment area into the long distance BA flights from Heathrow. There are few combinations with rail that would offer sufficient ease of connection.
I dont think banning smaller planes from Heathrow is a good idea. This just feels like excuses to limit expansion of Britains premier airport. As noted Amsterdam is not restrictive in the same way with the result that KLM have flights to so many UK regional airports, more than BA do.
IF they had built HS2 from Heathrow to Manchester then there would be a good case for scrapping Manchester flights. However, they did not and via OOC is not exactly the same as a single train.
Manchester Airport has a large catchment area and a Heathrow flight links that catchment area into the long distance BA flights from Heathrow. There are few combinations with rail that would offer sufficient ease of connection.
I dont think banning smaller planes from Heathrow is a good idea. This just feels like excuses to limit expansion of Britains premier airport. As noted Amsterdam is not restrictive in the same way with the result that KLM have flights to so many UK regional airports, more than BA do.
What economic benefit, if any, does the country get from a big hub airport? The benefit from people flying in, staying for a week and spending money here is obvious, but the benefit from people flying in then flying out again on another plane 2 hours later is less so beyond the coffee they might buy in the terminal.
What economic benefit, if any, does the country get from a big hub airport? The benefit from people flying in, staying for a week and spending money here is obvious, but the benefit from people flying in then flying out again on another plane 2 hours later is less so beyond the coffee they might buy in the terminal.
he benefit from people flying in, staying for a week and spending money here is obvious, but the benefit from people flying in then flying out again on another plane 2 hours later is less so beyond the coffee they might buy in the terminal.
The aviation industry will tell you that all these people flying from A to Z via Heathrow are essential because, without them, the links to A and Z simply wouldn't exist.
Never mind that the industry has to sell these seats at a steep discount compared to a direct A to Z ticket (this much is obvious- if they didn't, people would just fly direct). These people are essential to the whole airport.
If KLM are providing that connectivity via Schiphol then why does that connectivity need to be duplicated via Heathrow?
KLM fly small jets to places like Humberside and Teesside and connect those airports to the world. It's not like there's a massive untapped demand from these places- if there was, KLM would send a bigger plane to these airports.
If the Dutch want the environmental impact of all these piddly little aircraft then, really, they're welcome to them.
The aviation industry will tell you that all these people flying from A to Z via Heathrow are essential because, without them, the links to A and Z simply wouldn't exist.
Never mind that the industry has to sell these seats at a steep discount compared to a direct A to Z ticket (this much is obvious- if they didn't, people would just fly direct). These people are essential to the whole airport.
As you can imagine, I am unconvinced.
If KLM are providing that connectivity via Schiphol then why does that connectivity need to be duplicated via Heathrow?
KLM fly small jets to places like Humberside and Teesside and connect those airports to the world. It's not like there's a massive untapped demand from these places- if there was, KLM would send a bigger plane to these airports.
If the Dutch want the environmental impact of all these piddly little aircraft then, really, they're welcome to them.
I share this scepticism of the value to UK of Heathrow as a 'hub' airport, beyond the VAT on a cup of coffee or two and the NIC paid for a putative barista and income tax paid by mim or her on their low 'pay'.
AIUI KLM / Schipol has a much smaller range of destinations in Asia and North America compared to Heathrow. And a much better range to Central and South America.
What economic benefit, if any, does the country get from a big hub airport? The benefit from people flying in, staying for a week and spending money here is obvious, but the benefit from people flying in then flying out again on another plane 2 hours later is less so beyond the coffee they might buy in the terminal.
Because it sustains connections that otherwise may not be viable, not everybody is connecting, but if the connections weren’t available the U.K. alone might not be able to support point to point services to such a wide range of destinations at an attractive frequency. It ensures that there is such a network that time sensitive freight can be sent/received with a high degree of flexibility* (because pure freight flights are inefficient and somewhat inflecible), and effectively an airport the size of Heathrow is an economic power house in its own right.
My skepticism is more on how DSA and other such regional airports that deal primarily with outbound holiday fights and how they are supposedly vital to the economy.
*70% of the UK’s airfreight arrives/departs via Heathrow. 90-90% of Heathrow’s freight arrives/departs as belly freight on passenger aircraft,
IF they had built HS2 from Heathrow to Manchester then there would be a good case for scrapping Manchester flights. However, they did not and via OOC is not exactly the same as a single train.
But there would almost certainly be fewer flights albeit I don't think they would all disappear as some will still connect between Manchester and Heathrow before heading off elsewhere abroad (USA Asia etc).
The important thing is that HS2 reduces the need for internal flights and thus releases slots to serve destinations that cannot be served by High Speed Rail like North / South America, Asia and so on.
The whole point of hidden city ticketing is to fill up excess capacity.
Airlines price dump their excess seats through A-Heathrow-Z tickets. They do this so that there isn’t an impact on the fares they can charge from Heathrow to A or from Heathrow to Z. It’s nothing but a way of dumping excess capacity.
Commercially it makes perfect sense. Keep the yield up at your hub and price dump your excess capacity against your competitors’ hubs. The underlying issue is that there is the excess capacity requiring price dumping.
At the risk of going over old ground, hidden city ticketing isn't what you think it is.
Hidden city ticketing is when I want to fly New York to London, but I see BA is selling a ticket from New York to London to (example) Amsterdam for less than they are selling the New York to London ticket. So I buy the ticket to Amsterdam with the intention of ending my journey at London.
Hidden city ticketing is generally against airline T&Cs and airlines do try to stop it happening.
You're talking about connecting flights.
And it is simply the free market in action.
Where there is lots of competition, prices fall. Where a company has some USP (e.g. they offer direct flights/ have lots of frequent flyer programme members in a particular location), then that company can charge a premium.
This has nothing to do with excess capacity in the overall market (Europe-American for example) as such. Flights today are fuller than they've ever been before as most flyers will realise. It's more about market sentimentalization and charging what certain sections of the market will bare.
People are different. Person A might be willing to pay a large premium to fly direct. Person B prefers direct, but will connect if the prices don't add up. Person C will go for literally the cheapest flight. Person D sets a budget of £X and if they can't meet it, they don't fly. Person E is a frequent flyer programme member who simply must fly airline X. Person F... and so on.
Even premium airlines like BA try to reach as many segments of consumers they can, but in a manner which ensures the maximum profitability for the airline - i.e. ensuring those who can and will pay (A/B/E in my example above) do and at a price BA can make decent money at.
KLM fly small jets to places like Humberside and Teesside and connect those airports to the world. It's not like there's a massive untapped demand from these places- if there was, KLM would send a bigger plane to these airports.
These are not such small jets anymore: KLM operates the E190 three times a day, so it's 300 seats between Humberside and Schiphol alone. KLM have found a pretty good niche in serving these airports, especially as BA ignore them. There's even two flights a day from Norwich to Amsterdam! It might not be an enormous amount of untapped demand, but it certainly serves a purpose.
Generally speaking, yes, because the DfT could simply smack on a very large tax on very short haul flights. In practice, the DfT could just tell Heathrow that it's not desirable to waste valuable slots on small aircraft and Heathrow would simply ban them from flying there, just as it's very difficult (but not impossible) to fly a private jet into Heathrow. But it's worth remembering that the small flights are political hot potatoes: cutting the IoM from Heathrow would cause a very angry reaction in Tynwald, while the Derry flight is very much important for that part of Northern Ireland.
I think the domestic and short haul networks are vital to Heathrow’s success in the near markets. Without these, it is much harder to compete with the other European hubs and it would make short haul connections completely unattractive (2 hours on the M25 to Gatwick, anyone?).
When it comes to expansion, however, HAL needs to bear the full cost, not the taxpayer. Irrespective of how expensive a third runway would be, Heathrow is a private business which mustn’t receive public subsidy without a corresponding public shareholding.
Radar separation has and is being replaced by time based separation all over the world (including the UK) which uses real time weather conditions to calculate spacing between aircraft. These are converted into speed instructions from ATC on final approach to maintain safe levels of separation and enhancing the efficiency of arrivals.
It is impossible to enforce a minimum load factor. Is that minimum set at push back or X number of days before departure? Many many passengers book last minute. What if a inbound flight is late and 40 passengers miss connections? Load factors build over time as a route beds in. How long do you leave it before you ban the route? Or is it the plane you ban? Or the airline? An airline would simply sub the route to a smaller aircraft if such a rule came in. Though I read above suggestions that smallish planes should also be banned too. It would be a fool to dip their toe in aviation to make money in this kind of economic environment.
Why is a full SH BA plane a waste of capacity? The UK has a slow (by European standards) high speed railway and for connectivity there are lots of fast SH flights all over the UK from Heathrow. It’s not just who’s sitting in the cabin which needs to be considered. There’s an awful lot of important, necessary and expensive things flying around in the bellies of nearly all planes - not just bags. And much of that is then transferred onto other long haul aircraft.
The economic benefit of Heathrow should not be underestimated. It employs tens of thousands of people directly and indirectly. Aviation to the outsider is often seen as just flying passengers from A to B. It’s far more than that. Frequently they go on to C also. Along with lots of cargo too. Taxes generated by all activities associated with aviation run into the hundreds of millions. Heathrow is a massive employer both directly and indirectly in many industries associated with aviation such as engineering, catering, transportation, training, cargo handling, shopping, accommodation. Look at the profits companies such as IAG post and the huge levels of tax they hand over to HMRC along with all of their staff.
Many of the hubs in Europe have developed over decades and often it’s for historical reasons. If you want the best variety of routes into Brazil you book with TAP, for North America you book with BA, Air France and Brussels Airlines for inner Africa, South America (excluding Brazil) book with Iberia. These are long established routes between airports where a significant number of flights are not duplicated in other nearby hubs. There will be little demand to fly from London Heathrow to St. Maarten but from Amsterdam there will be.
Aviation is a huge and very complex industry; the simple view of the passengers going from London to Scotland in a small plane with hand luggage is maybe a tiny percentage of what actually goes on in the industry.
I think the domestic and short haul networks are vital to Heathrow’s success in the near markets. Without these, it is much harder to compete with the other European hubs and it would make short haul connections completely unattractive (2 hours on the M25 to Gatwick, anyone?).
re KLM regional flights, I use KLM from Bristol several times a year connecting onto long-haul flights in Amsterdam and it saves all the hassle of getting to/from the London airports and every KLM flight I have taken out of Bristol has been well loaded with the maximum amount of spare seats I have ever noticed being around 10. Transferring planes in Amsterdam is pretty painless (I have done it 37 times so far) and the only downside is the Cityhopper flights park on remote stands necessitating a bus transfer to/from the terminal.
Likewise Aer Lingus flights via Dublin, I went to Nashville from Bristol via Dublin in June this year and clearing US Customs and Immigration was a breeze compared to flying from London and clearing in the US (which a couple of colleagues on the same holiday had to do and it took 4 hours to get through the border controls in Nashville).
I much prefer flying from my local airport and avoiding the hassle of travelling to Gatwick or Heathrow by coach or train and losing half a day of your holiday in the process.
There's zero market for passengers flying into one of those airports and out of the other.
They will simply choose to connect via another hub airport, with much easier same terminal, or inter-terminal connections.
re KLM regional flights, I use KLM from Bristol several times a year connecting onto long-haul flights in Amsterdam and it saves all the hassle of getting to/from the London airports and every KLM flight I have taken out of Bristol has been well loaded with the maximum amount of spare seats I have ever noticed being around 10. Transferring planes in Amsterdam is pretty painless (I have done it 37 times so far) and the only downside is the Cityhopper flights park on remote stands necessitating a bus transfer to/from the terminal.
Likewise Aer Lingus flights via Dublin, I went to Nashville from Bristol via Dublin in June this year and clearing US Customs and Immigration was a breeze compared to flying from London and clearing in the US (which a couple of colleagues on the same holiday had to do and it took 4 hours to get through the border controls in Nashville).
I much prefer flying from my local airport and avoiding the hassle of travelling to Gatwick or Heathrow by coach or train and losing half a day of your holiday in the process.
I’ve used KLM to connect to long haul flights from Bristol, as living 10 mins from the airport it’s very convenient.
The only issue is that with only 3 flights a day, you can end up with a very long wait at Schipol, in at least one direction. Which does mean that I unfortunately often conclude that LHR is the more convenient option.
I’ve used KLM to connect to long haul flights from Bristol, as living 10 mins from the airport it’s very convenient.
The only issue is that with only 3 flights a day, you can end up with a very long wait at Schipol, in at least one direction. Which does mean that I unfortunately often conclude that LHR is the more convenient option.
I use Humberside for KLM when I can. 15 minute drive, 2 minutes car park to terminal, straight into departures and can be in Schipol within 2 hours of leaving home. Alternatives would require at least a 2 hour drive in any direction. So the wait in Schipol is a no brainer for me personally, even if the flights can be a bit expensive. I guess in Bristol the access to London airports is superior to up here.
I use Humberside for KLM when I can. 15 minute drive, 2 minutes car park to terminal, straight into departures and can be in Schipol within 2 hours of leaving home. Alternatives would require at least a 2 hour drive in any direction. So the wait in Schipol is a no brainer for me personally, even if the flights can be a bit expensive. I guess in Bristol the access to London airports is superior to up here.
Yes, having checked it’s around 90 mins faster by road, and a similar amount by rail, so that does make KLM a relatively more attractive proposition for you than me.
And I’m guessing BRS is a busier airport too. As an example there are 15 departures between 0555 and 0630 tomorrow, one of which is the morning KLM flight, the rest will all be 73x or A32x size planes. So getting into the airport and through to the gate probably takes longer too, so not quite as easy as you find it.
There's zero market for passengers flying into one of those airports and out of the other.
They will simply choose to connect via another hub airport, with much easier same terminal, or inter-terminal connections.
Zero market? Why would BA sell tickets with a change of London airport, if there was zero demand?
And why other European hubs growing at the expense of Heathrow such a bad thing? It is already extremely well connected, and only a portion of the less well used connections survive because of connecting flights - most Heathrow destinations would justify at least one flight per day without connecting flights.
There’s a difference netween an airline offering such tickets for sale, and passenges buying them!
There are a few passengers who do buy tickets with an airport change in London, but I’d be surprised if those connecting between Gatwick and Heathrow made up more than 0.05% of those using Heathrow. It’s essentially irrelevant.
And I’m guessing BRS is a busier airport too. As an example there are 15 departures between 0555 and 0630 tomorrow, one of which is the morning KLM flight, the rest will all be 73x or A32x size planes. So getting into the airport and through to the gate probably takes longer too, so not quite as easy as you find it.
I have never had more than a 15 minute wait to get through security in Bristol, even at the peak of summer holiday flights, as I don't carry a huge amount of hand luggage----just a small bag containing my passport, tickets, phone and wallet. Once through security it is a bit manic in the lounge as there is nowhere near enough seating and places to drink/eat but I normally make my way to the gate KLM use and being a smaller Embraer it is not crowded. On the easyJet and Jet2 flights I use then that can be a bit stressful as they are normally fully loaded but you just have to take the rough with the smooth!
An airline can (usually) charge a premium for direct flights to and from its hub. Therefore it will, in an ideal world, fill its aircraft with people from this hub who are paying this premium.
If it cannot fill its aircraft with such people, it has two choices: reduce its fares from the hub to attract extra customers, or market the spare seats to passengers who are willing to connect through the hub in exchange for a discount.
This is where the "market segmentation" kicks in. Selling the spare seats at a steep discount to connecting passengers doesn't reduce the premium they can charge to passengers flying directly from the hub. It also, as an added bonus, attracts passengers away from their competitors' hubs.
"Hidden city ticketing" is people flying directly from the hub using this methodology to their advantage by booking a connecting ticket and binning off the last leg.
All of this makes perfect commercial sense to any airline. Why reduce your hub premium when you can dump the excess capacity somewhere else? That's the real reason why airlines' T&Cs generally prohibit hidden city ticketing, they don't want to reduce their hub premium.
But the fundamental point remains that an airline can only sell a seat once. If BA were filling all the seats on their aircraft with people paying a premium from Heathrow, they wouldn't be offering connecting tickets at such steep discounts. About 35% of passengers at Heathrow are connecting passengers who do not enter the UK. This would indicate, in my opinion, that capacity currently exceeds demand by at least 20%.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Yes there was a helicopter service from Heathrow to Gatwick. It was started for connections from British Airways to British Caledonian. However despite it's popularity it was cancelled when the M25 was completed.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
