Aviation Discussion

[anme]

Does anyone know a way of finding out if the aircraft you are going to use still uses the old two prong headphone sockets? I have always assumed it was the older Boeing ones but have still found some Airbus that have them. For example I have three flights coming up LHR to Haneda via Amsterdam with KLM/Airfrance code share (should be a 777) Haneda to Kumamoto with ANA & Osaka - LHR again via Amsterdam. Subject to last minute changes what would normally be allocated to this route for the long haul legs & will I need to dig out my old two prong to 3.5mm headphone adapter!

Short answer - no, and it seems to vary between airlines even on the same aircraft type of similar age, and the two prong sockets are even fitted to some new planes. I suggest you bring the adaptor.

 

[Skutter]

It is obviously impractical and insulting to weigh passengers on boarding

I've been weighed when boarding small planes at small airports around the top end of Europe, they didn't make a big deal about it. For larger passenger numbers you could get away with a less precise measurement during the check-in or boarding processes - I wonder if any airports do this and sell the data to airlines?

 

[Butts]

I've been weighed when boarding small planes at small airports around the top end of Europe, they didn't make a big deal about it. For larger passenger numbers you could get away with a less precise measurement during the check-in or boarding processes - I wonder if any airports do this and sell the data to airlines?

Well they didn't weigh me going to Barra on a 19 Seat Twin Otter

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Well they didn't weigh me going to Barra on a 19 Seat Twin Otter

Once flew in the same type to and over the Grand Canyon and that was also without weighing. I suspect the pilot carries out a quick "visual inspection" and re-arranges passengers if they feel it necessary. Got put in the emergency exit seat both ways so had the biggest window, very useful for photography. Though that was more about fitness to work the door rather than a weight issue!

 

[WatcherZero]

May has delayed vote on Heathrow again till 2018, more than a year.

 

[Butts]

May has delayed vote on Heathrow again till 2018, more than a year.

This is crazy !!!!!

All it will do is increase the cost of it's inevitable construction....

Nicola Sturgeon is in favour of a third runway at Heathrow so with limited Labour support and the SNP they should have rammed it through :roll:

 

[Peter Mugridge]

So… having spent ages and millions on the Howard Commission which was supposed to remove the political risk from the Government, they’re still going to wait 15 months to have a vote in Parliament after they say next week that they want ( presumably ) the same solution as the Commission reported would be best…? In other words, they’re bringing the whole risk back onto their own shoulders?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Nicola Sturgeon is in favour of a third runway at Heathrow so with limited Labour support and the SNP they should have rammed it through :roll:

The problem is a not insignificant number of Tories don't agree with the third runway at Heathrow.

Truth be told, I don't either. About 25% of everyone travelling through Heathrow is connecting between two international flights, so the economic benefit of them coming to Heathrow is precisely nil.

British Airways charge significantly less to EU passengers connecting through Heathrow than they do to UK passengers starting their journey at Heathrow.

Sort that out, and the urgent need for a new runway at Heathrow has gone. If you want extra capacity, try using Gatwick or Stanstead for a change.

When a plane on final approach to Heathrow comes down short in Chelsea or Hammersmith- and it will, law of averages says it'll happen- the political will for Heathrow will disappear immediately.

 

[Butts]

The problem is a not insignificant number of Tories don't agree with the third runway at Heathrow.

Truth be told, I don't either. About 25% of everyone travelling through Heathrow is connecting between two international flights, so the economic benefit of them coming to Heathrow is precisely nil.

British Airways charge significantly less to EU passengers connecting through Heathrow than they do to UK passengers starting their journey at Heathrow.

Sort that out, and the urgent need for a new runway at Heathrow has gone. If you want extra capacity, try using Gatwick or Stanstead for a change.

When a plane on final approach to Heathrow comes down short in Chelsea or Hammersmith- and it will, law of averages says it'll happen- the political will for Heathrow will disappear immediately.

You could say the same about Edinburgh,Glasgow,Aberdeen,Manchester, Brimingham, Southampton or countless others.

 

[me123]

Flew down from Aberdeen to Birmingham yesterday with Flybe on a Q400 :cry:

I had forgotten how small the Security Area is at ABZ - imagine it could get quite congested if the Airport was busy.

I've seen it queued round past the BA check in desks and round towards the domestic baggage claim on a few occasions, although I thankfully haven't been caught in such a queue.

I hate Aberdeen airport, bit in fairness it does set you up for the Aberdeen experience.

 

[giblets]

Agree on the 175 and 195s, lovely to fly on. The same can't be said for the rj100s (146s as I still call them), starting the show their age internally, just not enough space, especially the stupid bins under the wings.
My judgement may be clouded as mine went tech today on the way back from Brussels to BHx, so might make it home by 2am after a detour to LHR!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[stut]

Truth be told, I don't either. About 25% of everyone travelling through Heathrow is connecting between two international flights, so the economic benefit of them coming to Heathrow is precisely nil.

That's a very low proportion of connecting passengers for such a major airport. And surely the money for them connecting going to BA and HAL (not to mention the various airport concessions) is an economic benefit.

British Airways charge significantly less to EU passengers connecting through Heathrow than they do to UK passengers starting their journey at Heathrow.

Of course they do - there's a premium on convenience. Why would someone fly from Frankfurt to New York via London unless it was cheaper than going direct?

Sort that out, and the urgent need for a new runway at Heathrow has gone. If you want extra capacity, try using Gatwick or Stanstead for a change.

Why not expand Heathrow *and* Gatwick if you're going to expand anything at all? It would vastly increase reliability of air travel in the SE. The case for Stansted is a lot weaker.

Not sure what you mean by 'sort that out'. Have government set the fares for the country's major airline? That's not going to end well.

All major airports and airlines rely on connecting traffic - and this works well for BA as, due to the UK's geographic location, it can specialise in flight to/from the US, that aren't necessarily sustainable to/from other locations in Europe. It also benefit's for London's status (for now) as a financial centre, meaning there's a huge O&D market, particularly for premium traffic.

It's also been made the hub for the UK, so the regions depend heavily on it for international connections - although KLM do make a good go of that too, thanks to its AirUK heritage.

Remove the transit traffic, and you risk BA's profitablity, the profitability of several long- and short-haul routes, and connections from other UK airports to the rest of the world. Not a great state of affairs.

When a plane on final approach to Heathrow comes down short in Chelsea or Hammersmith- and it will, law of averages says it'll happen- the political will for Heathrow will disappear immediately.

We should ban building all large buildings too, because the law of averages says a gas explosion will happen at some point and have a devastating impact on the city.

 

[anme]

Remove the transit traffic, and you risk BA's profitablity, the profitability of several long- and short-haul routes, and connections from other UK airports to the rest of the world. Not a great state of affairs.

The question is whether the transit traffic at Heathrow is worth the blighting of several million people's lives in west London. Anyway, given the result of the referendum it would seem stupid to expand Heathrow now, as the UK is withdrawing from globalisation and international affairs. It is surely better to wait and see how things look in ten years or so, when the UK's new place in the world is clearer.

 

[Tetchytyke]

That's a very low proportion of connecting passengers for such a major airport. And surely the money for them connecting going to BA and HAL (not to mention the various airport concessions) is an economic benefit.

British Airways is owned by IAG, who are Spanish, and HAL is owned by Ferrovial, who are also Spanish. There may be an "economic benefit", but it isn't for us.

The total number of connecting passengers is about 40%. The 25% is people who never cross the UK border, so never have any business in the UK.

Why would someone fly from Frankfurt to New York via London unless it was cheaper than going direct?

Why should we blight the lives of everyone who lives in West London so a Spanish airline can undercut a German airline?

Heathrow is only at capacity because a quarter of everyone there is choosing to fly via Heathrow because it's cheaper than a direct flight. Get rid of them, as they serve no economic benefit to the UK, and Heathrow doesn't need to be expanded.

 

[stut]

British Airways is owned by IAG, who are Spanish, and HAL is owned by Ferrovial, who are also Spanish. There may be an "economic benefit", but it isn't for us.

IAG is a British-Spanish multinational. Plus, there are economic benefits from any major employer in a given location, regardless of company of ownership. Doesn't Nissan provide economic benefit to Wearside?

The total number of connecting passengers is about 40%. The 25% is people who never cross the UK border, so never have any business in the UK.

That's still low - it's 70% at Schiphol, for example.

Why should we blight the lives of everyone who lives in West London so a Spanish airline can undercut a German airline?

Because airlines run networks. The point-to-point model only works in specific market types (and results in more, smaller aircraft, so more take-offs and landings). O&D traffic is clearly BA's main market - and that's relatively unique for London - other traffic fills remaining capacity, and maintains routes that would not otherwise be viable.

As for why should West London be "blighted", well... You can flip that around. Are the economic benefits brought to the area worth the disruption. Plenty of the major employers in the area wouldn't be there without Heathrow's presence. The M4 corridor wouldn't exist without the connections afforded by Heathrow's status.

You can also flip it around and ask, if you're to site it elsewhere, why should regions outside London be blighted for London's benefit? Aircraft noise has a far bigger impact in rural areas than urban, but impacts fewer people. Is that more or less acceptable?

There's multiple questions here: are the environmental impacts of airport expansion worth it for the supposed economic benefits? Can it be achieved by other means? To me, that's the discussion point.

Heathrow is only at capacity because a quarter of everyone there is choosing to fly via Heathrow because it's cheaper than a direct flight. Get rid of them, as they serve no economic benefit to the UK, and Heathrow doesn't need to be expanded.

It's not that simple, though.

First of all, how do you do that without nationalising BA?

They do provide economic benefit, not just because of the airline (which is part-British, and is a major employer) but because they are sustaining routes, connectivity and pricing that would not otherwise be viable. There would be a huge knock-on impact to the tech sector in West London and the M4 corridor from a downgrade of Heathrow's status, and a further knock-on if a reduction of competition resulted in significantly more expensive air travel (airlines are very marginal businesses at best).

BA doesn't sell cheap tickets from Frankfurt to New York to undercut Lufthansa. It does so because it allows it to manage capacity and optimise yield on both Frankfurt-London and London-New York sectors, which makes its operation and revenue much more predictable. They are cheaper because, well, nobody would choose to fly indirectly otherwise. But then, direct options aren't always available. Who would fly from Hannover to San Diego non-stop? Nobody. That's where hub and spoke comes in, and airlines compete with each other. And without the yield management that comes along with it, half the routes out of London would not be viable. And yes, that solves the capacity issue through BA, but seriously harms the businesses that rely on the ability to readily and cheaply travel from London to various parts of the globe (and don't underestimate the importance of this, even in the world of Skype).

The other benefit of connecting traffic is that it allows airlines to run bigger aircraft on core routes, giving much greater capacity between certain city pairs. By restricting it, you can equally end up with the same network being served, only using smaller, cheaper aircraft. Which means that you have fewer passengers, more expensive fares, but the same number of aircraft movements, and you've gained nothing at all.

There definitely needs to be a discussion about aircraft expansion in the SE, and it definitely needs to take the environmental (including both noise and pollution) impacts into consideration, and weigh it up against the economic benefits. Simply to try and constrain it with anti-competitive measures, or arguing that BA's merger with an airline from another country means the economic benefits are lost, doesn't make a case.

If the government is serious about promoting the "Northern Powerhouse", it could consider expanding Manchester airport, and encouraging an airline to set up a hub there, for example. Or it could improve high-speed rail links into Birmingham Airport, and have a national hub there.

Or we could simply decide to wreck the nation's economy (by referendum, perhaps) and then the demand will simply shrink of its own accord. Er, no comment.

 

[freetoview33]

I'd personally allow both Gatwick and Heathrow with conditions of improving the following.

A) Rail Access
B) Road Access
C) Pollution
D) Noise
E) Environment
F) Bus/Coach connections
G) Safety
H) Redraw airspace (which would link into other issues)
I) Limits of night flights and any future expansion
J) Limited use of public money on the actual airport, but maybe some for upgrading public transport.

Whatever airport does get the go ahead, Reading is going to be a focus!

Gatwick wants the Reading - Gatwick line to be electrified and frequency increased. Heathrow wants better links to/from Reading too.

If you went for both then I think the situation could be improved for everyone, as long as strict conditions were met and agreed to and not allowed to get out of them!

 

[Rick1984]

Well they didn't weigh me going to Barra on a 19 Seat Twin Otter

I would say they should have done as weight is very important on smaller planes. I have experienced this on a charter flight.

 

[Tetchytyke]

There definitely needs to be a discussion about aircraft expansion in the SE, and it definitely needs to take the environmental (including both noise and pollution) impacts into consideration, and weigh it up against the economic benefits. Simply to try and constrain it with anti-competitive measures, or arguing that BA's merger with an airline from another country means the economic benefits are lost, doesn't make a case.

BA is a Spanish airline, headquarters in Spain and run by a Spaniard. It is a relevant factor in whether the economic benefits actually pass through to the British people who will pay for the airport expansion and who will suffer the environmental consequences of the airport expansion.

My point is not "anti-competitive", it is simply to question whether there is any economic benefit for the UK in expanding an airport to accommodate more international transfer traffic, especially where BA are charging UK customers more for the same flight compared to transfer passengers. I don't think there is.

Heathrow only needs expanding to accommodate transfer passengers who provide us with little financial benefit, other than a few retail jobs in Pret a Manger. It has been joked that Heathrow's third runway is at Schiphol, and I don't see an issue with that at all.

As you say, there is unused capacity at most regional airports, and the economic benefits of encouraging BA to return direct flights to Manchester and Glasgow far outweigh the economic benefits of expanding Heathrow.

 

[Butts]

As you say, there is unused capacity at most regional airports, and the economic benefits of encouraging BA to return direct flights to Manchester and Glasgow far outweigh the economic benefits of expanding Heathrow.

I take it you mean from Manchester and Glasgow (ie abroad) as domestic flights to both already exist.

 

[Bletchleyite]

BA is a Spanish airline, headquarters in Spain and run by a Spaniard. It is a relevant factor in whether the economic benefits actually pass through to the British people who will pay for the airport expansion and who will suffer the environmental consequences of the airport expansion.

easyJet is a British airline, headquarters in the UK and run by a British person (Stelios is no longer heavily involved, and in any case I think he is a British citizen?)

easyJet want Heathrow slots and can't presently get them. With expansion, they probably could.

It isn't just about BA, which in any case is partly UK owned.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I take it you mean from Manchester and Glasgow (ie abroad) as domestic flights to both already exist.

I do, yes. There's clearly the market, Virgin and Emirates are proving it.

easyJet want Heathrow slots and can't presently get them. With expansion, they probably could.

If there wasn't the protectionism afforded to British Airways- who are blatantly gaming the system after they took over BMI- they could get them, too.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Quite interesting to see Flybe will be continuing the Cardiff to London City flights that they have been doing during the closure of the Severn Tunnel. Not hugely surprised since the flight I took last Saturday at 7.05am was busier than what I expected, and I would imagine the later flights and the weekday ones are probably a bit busier too. Just wish getting to and from Cardiff airport wasn't such a pain from my where my parents live!

 

[stut]

I do, yes. There's clearly the market, Virgin and Emirates are proving it.

Yes, and I wish BA hadn't completely pulled out of MAN (the JFK-MAN flight was great), but take care to compare like with like.

Virgin are offering point-to-point bucket-and-spade long-haul routes from these airports, on high-density aircraft. BA could do this, but it's not their business model (and this will become more difficult with the rise of the like of Norwegian).

Emirates, Qatar Airways, Etihad and their ilk are feeding flights into their Middle-East hubs. O&D traffic between Manchester and Dubai isn't massive, but onward traffic to South Asia, Indochina and the Antipodes is.

Air India and PIA are serving specific ethnic markets.

These airlines are great for the North and Scotland. But you can't simply transpose operations from a popular hub (with a lot of high-value O&D) to a point-to-point operation where the traffic relies on a remote hub.

 

[freetoview33]

I know easyjet have said they want Heathrow expanded but I don't think it is because they want to start flights there! I think it's because they want to shift airlines out of Gatwick so they can be "top dog" there.

 

[anme]

I know easyjet have said they want Heathrow expanded but I don't think it is because they want to start flights there! I think it's because they want to shift airlines out of Gatwick so they can be "top dog" there.

Yes, and Easyjet don't seem like a good reason to expand Heathrow as they don't offer through ticketing other flights.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes, and Easyjet don't seem like a good reason to expand Heathrow as they don't offer through ticketing other flights.

Then don't. Yet.

 

[Butts]

Quite interesting to see Flybe will be continuing the Cardiff to London City flights that they have been doing during the closure of the Severn Tunnel. Not hugely surprised since the flight I took last Saturday at 7.05am was busier than what I expected, and I would imagine the later flights and the weekday ones are probably a bit busier too. Just wish getting to and from Cardiff airport wasn't such a pain from my where my parents live!

That must have almost doubled the number of Flights from Cardiff

When I flew down from Edinburgh earlier this year I couldn't believe how few flights per day there were.

 

[freetoview33]

Yes, and Easyjet don't seem like a good reason to expand Heathrow as they don't offer through ticketing other flights.

Yes I just see no logical reason for easyjet wanting to open at Heathrow.

Too expensive, too close to Gatwick and too close to Bristol (Two of it's biggest bases) the same reason Easyjet are not at Birmingham or Cardiff.

 

[Butts]

Yes I just see no logical reason for easyjet wanting to open at Heathrow.

Too expensive, too close to Gatwick and too close to Bristol (Two of it's biggest bases) the same reason Easyjet are not at Birmingham or Cardiff.

Huh ???? - They fly to Belfast and Geneva from Birmingham ?

 

[freetoview33]

Huh ???? - They fly to Belfast and Geneva from Birmingham ?

There is talk the Belfast route might be scrapped. Which would just leave the seasonal Geneva service