Prev: "Women refuse to go through airport body scanners"
Next: Aviation ash crisis brought very best out of Edinburgh
From: pete on 25 Apr 2010 06:10
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:21:13 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <slrnht80ue.kio.no-one(a)corv.local>, at 08:56:46 on Sun, 25
> Apr 2010, pete <no-one(a)unknown.com> remarked:
>>Since they never leave the terminals, transfer pax don't contribute
>>much, if at all directly to our economy and just take up space in planes
>>and landing/takeoff slots that would be more profitable bringing in
>>tourists and business travellers who actually stay here for a time.
>
> Of course they contribute to the local economy,
I never said they didn't contribute. My words were:
*** don't contribute much, if at all directly

The _directly_ was the key word. A few minimum wage baggage bashers and
caterers. When visitors to Britian would employ (indirectly) far more
people - although admittedly most would still be minimum wage jobs.

> all those transfer PAX
> pay for staff to shift their bags from plane to another, to make meals
> for their outbound flight, and ultimately if they account for 35% of the
> business that's 35% of the aircrew and everything else that's needed to
> keep the airport running.

But that's the point, isn't it! What the 3rd runway people are proposing
is to increase the size of the airport: more flights, more employees, etc.
If you don't expand the airport and encourage transfers via other
countries, the expansion of flights starting or ending at LHR can still
grow as they take over from the in-and-out again flights.
Those are the flights that bring us the economic benefits, not loads of
people sitting in departure lounges.

> And with fewer flights (frequency of flights, whether that's "at least
> daily", or for medium haul "at least twice a day") is just as important
> as exotic destinations) and fewer destinations, the country becomes less
> attractive for the remaining passengers to travel to.
From: Clive on 25 Apr 2010 06:12
"Charles C" <c.k.christacopoulos_removeme_(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:4bd411e1$0$2530$da0feed9(a)news.zen.co.uk...

>
> Yes interesting. Does Icelandair have any mechanism in place for
> transferring passengers to Iceland or passengers get from one place to
> another and go anywhere but Iceland.
>
..

Yes, Icelandair are operating a shuttle service between GLA and Akureyri
which is a small airport in the north of the country with no ash issues.

Here's the entry from the news page at http://www.flyglasgowdirect.co.uk:

"Icelandair: Following 6 days of cancelled flights due to the volcanic
eruption in Iceland, Glasgow Airport is now enjoying a boost with Icelandair
temporarily relocating their Keflavik hub to Glasgow whilst their home
airport is closed due to the volcanic ash. Eight Boeing 757's are currently
based at Glasgow linking Icelandair's American and European flights and a
shuttle to the small northern Iceland airport of Akureyri from where
passengers can be bussed to Reykjavik. www.icelandair.co.uk"

C

--

www.flyglasgowdirect.co.uk
Glasgow Airport News & Information
www.edinburghairportguide.com
The Edinburgh Airport Guide


From: William Black on 25 Apr 2010 06:39
jcurry99SCOTLAND(a)FLY2EDIgooglemail.com wrote:
> Source: http://www.ft.com
>
> Andrew Hill
>
> ....That would be particularly true if transfer passengers - spooked
> by the volcano effect - now found alternatives to changing aircraft in
> London. They account for 30 to 40 per cent of Heathrow's 66m customers
> annually. Without them, airport owner BAA argues, the airport could
> not justify point-to-point flights to distant destinations....

People hate Heathrow and some of them, including us, are going to some
lengths to avoid the place.


--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
From: Roland Perry on 25 Apr 2010 08:20
In message <slrnht8582.no9.no-one(a)corv.local>, at 10:10:10 on Sun, 25
Apr 2010, pete <no-one(a)unknown.com> remarked:

>>>Since they never leave the terminals, transfer pax don't contribute
>>>much, if at all directly to our economy and just take up space in planes
>>>and landing/takeoff slots that would be more profitable bringing in
>>>tourists and business travellers who actually stay here for a time.
>>
>> Of course they contribute to the local economy,
>I never said they didn't contribute. My words were:
> *** don't contribute much, if at all directly
>
>The _directly_ was the key word.

What's indirect about a man transferring your bags?

>A few minimum wage baggage bashers and caterers. When visitors to
>Britian would employ (indirectly) far more people - although admittedly
>most would still be minimum wage jobs.

You seem to assume the transfer PAX be replaced by people whose ultimate
destination is London.

>> all those transfer PAX
>> pay for staff to shift their bags from plane to another, to make meals
>> for their outbound flight, and ultimately if they account for 35% of the
>> business that's 35% of the aircrew and everything else that's needed to
>> keep the airport running.
>
>But that's the point, isn't it! What the 3rd runway people are proposing
>is to increase the size of the airport: more flights, more employees, etc.
>If you don't expand the airport and encourage transfers via other
>countries, the expansion of flights starting or ending at LHR can still
>grow as they take over from the in-and-out again flights.
>Those are the flights that bring us the economic benefits, not loads of
>people sitting in departure lounges.

Are you sure the expansion is mainly in PAX heading for London, rather
than transfers?
--
Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on 25 Apr 2010 08:29
In message <hr1657$cmp$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, at 11:39:34 on
Sun, 25 Apr 2010, William Black <william.black(a)hotmail.co.uk> remarked:
>People hate Heathrow and some of them, including us, are going to some
>lengths to avoid the place.

I agree with that, but try to fly to even capital cities like Prague,
Madrid or Lisbon direct from the regions. (OK there are a few low-costs
nowadays, but they can be irregular and fickle - eg the significant
reduction to Prague compared to a few years ago).
--
Roland Perry
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Prev: "Women refuse to go through airport body scanners"
Next: Aviation ash crisis brought very best out of Edinburgh