Prev: "Women refuse to go through airport body scanners"
Next: Aviation ash crisis brought very best out of Edinburgh
From: jcurry99SCOTLAND on 25 Apr 2010 03:29 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.... Full Story http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/376cc550-4f39-11df-b8f4-00144feab49a.html
From: pete on 25 Apr 2010 04:56 On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 08:29:04 +0100, 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.... > > Full Story > > http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/376cc550-4f39-11df-b8f4-00144feab49a.html Would it be such a bad thing, if LHR didn't have so many destinations? All that would happen would be that the transfer pax would fly to somewhere which was built big enough. Those transfers would include people from Britain who took internal flights from other UK cities, instead of changing planes in London, would now change in Amsterdam or Madrid or even CDG. the only fliers who would be inconvenienced would be the small number who arrive at LHR by land and catch direct flights to places that would NOT be served directly any more. All the major destinations (in mainland Europe, USA and Far East) would still get flights. 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. You never know, it might even reduce congestion on our roads, with fewer people travelling from one airport to another.
From: Roland Perry on 25 Apr 2010 05:15 In message <ehr7t5dmfs0f3bk6lsqo6e2lr3sele48bd(a)4ax.com>, at 08:29:04 on Sun, 25 Apr 2010, jcurry99SCOTLAND(a)FLY2EDIgooglemail.com remarked: >Without them, airport owner BAA argues, the airport could >not justify point-to-point flights to distant destinations.... That's odd, I thought the airlines organised the flights, not the airport. -- Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on 25 Apr 2010 05:21 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, 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. 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. -- Roland Perry
From: Charles C on 25 Apr 2010 05:56
YRCMIU said the following on 25/04/2010 10:05: > On Apr 25, 9:56 am, pete <no-...(a)unknown.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 08:29:04 +0100, jcurry99SCOTL...(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.... >>> Full Story >>> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/376cc550-4f39-11df-b8f4-00144feab49a.html >> Would it be such a bad thing, if LHR didn't have so many destinations? >> All that would happen would be that the transfer pax would fly to >> somewhere which was built big enough. Those transfers would include >> people from Britain who took internal flights from other UK cities, >> instead of changing planes in London, would now change in Amsterdam >> or Madrid or even CDG. the only fliers who would be inconvenienced >> would be the small number who arrive at LHR by land and catch direct >> flights to places that would NOT be served directly any more. All the >> major destinations (in mainland Europe, USA and Far East) would still >> get flights. >> 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. >> >> You never know, it might even reduce congestion on our roads, with >> fewer people travelling from one airport to another. > > Indeed, somewhere like GLA would make an ideal hub for pax traversing > the Atlantic, in fact Icelandair are using it as a Transatlantic hub > at this very moment. > 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. There had been a ferry a few days ago that did the trip to collect Brits, it came to Aberdeen or something? C. |