|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Aug 27, 2023 12:46:48 GMT
I voted for Khan in the last election however I would probably not vote for him. Most of the time I can't be bothered to vote If you don’t vote then you cannot complain about the actions of the duly elected Mayor. Voting takes seconds and polling stations are very easy to get to - I get terribly frustrated with those who say they can’t be bothered to vote; it’s the only voice we have to tell politicians what we really think of them and it’s something that’s been fought strongly for and shouldn’t be dismissed so frivolously Have to say that this is something that frustrates me about young people in general. There's often the big hoo-ha about futures being ruined of the younger generation by people who will die soon whenever the Tories win an election, however the reason they keep winning is because the younger generation aren't really bothered with voting, yet still expect to see some results. It can be seen in cases like the 2020 American election as to what happens when young people finally get up and bother. Similar can be quite easily done in the UK if people are interested. |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Aug 27, 2023 13:03:49 GMT
I voted for Khan in the last election however I would probably not vote for him. Most of the time I can't be bothered to vote If you don’t vote then you cannot complain about the actions of the duly elected Mayor. Voting takes seconds and polling stations are very easy to get to - I get terribly frustrated with those who say they can’t be bothered to vote; it’s the only voice we have to tell politicians what we really think of them and it’s something that’s been fought strongly for and shouldn’t be dismissed so frivolously But what if I don't like any of the candidates |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Aug 27, 2023 13:05:29 GMT
If you don’t vote then you cannot complain about the actions of the duly elected Mayor. Voting takes seconds and polling stations are very easy to get to - I get terribly frustrated with those who say they can’t be bothered to vote; it’s the only voice we have to tell politicians what we really think of them and it’s something that’s been fought strongly for and shouldn’t be dismissed so frivolously Have to say that this is something that frustrates me about young people in general. There's often the big hoo-ha about futures being ruined of the younger generation by people who will die soon whenever the Tories win an election, however the reason they keep winning is because the younger generation aren't really bothered with voting, yet still expect to see some results. It can be seen in cases like the 2020 American election as to what happens when young people finally get up and bother. Similar can be quite easily done in the UK if people are interested. I don't think that Trump is great but neither is Biden. It's a case of voting for the lesser of the two evils |
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Aug 27, 2023 13:52:12 GMT
I voted for Khan in the last election however I would probably not vote for him. Most of the time I can't be bothered to vote If you don’t vote then you cannot complain about the actions of the duly elected Mayor. Voting takes seconds and polling stations are very easy to get to - I get terribly frustrated with those who say they can’t be bothered to vote; it’s the only voice we have to tell politicians what we really think of them and it’s something that’s been fought strongly for and shouldn’t be dismissed so frivolously To be honest I only care about local issues, so would always vote based on local issues. In the 2019 General Election, and likely in the 2024 Mayoral, it'll come down to Hammersmith Bridge and the expansion of Heathrow. If they promise to fix the bridge quickly, or they campaigned against the Heathrow expansion, then they've got my vote! Couldn't care less about their party or the national result in general elections - will one constituency really change the overall picture? Also I don't really think national politics really affects us as individuals. However, having said that, I'm not sure I'd vote for Khan again considering his track record. In my local constituency in the General Election next Xmas, the opposite will be true as I really like my current MP. Also I would tend not to vote for someone who hasn't a chance. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 27, 2023 14:05:48 GMT
If you don’t vote then you cannot complain about the actions of the duly elected Mayor. Voting takes seconds and polling stations are very easy to get to - I get terribly frustrated with those who say they can’t be bothered to vote; it’s the only voice we have to tell politicians what we really think of them and it’s something that’s been fought strongly for and shouldn’t be dismissed so frivolously But what if I don't like any of the candidates You have the option of spoiling your ballot paper |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Aug 27, 2023 14:08:18 GMT
But what if I don't like any of the candidates You have the option of spoiling your ballot paper I don't think that that option is worth it. I'd rather stay at home if I dislike all the candidates. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Aug 27, 2023 15:16:11 GMT
If you don’t vote then you cannot complain about the actions of the duly elected Mayor. Voting takes seconds and polling stations are very easy to get to - I get terribly frustrated with those who say they can’t be bothered to vote; it’s the only voice we have to tell politicians what we really think of them and it’s something that’s been fought strongly for and shouldn’t be dismissed so frivolously To be honest I only care about local issues, so would always vote based on local issues. In the 2019 General Election, and likely in the 2024 Mayoral, it'll come down to Hammersmith Bridge and the expansion of Heathrow. If they promise to fix the bridge quickly, or they campaigned against the Heathrow expansion, then they've got my vote! Couldn't care less about their party or the national result in general elections - will one constituency really change the overall picture? Also I don't really think national politics really affects us as individuals. However, having said that, I'm not sure I'd vote for Khan again considering his track record. In my local constituency in the General Election next Xmas, the opposite will be true as I really like my current MP. Also I would tend not to vote for someone who hasn't a chance. I’ve always felt the issue with Heathrow could be resolved by investing that money in Gatwick and Manchester instead. Both are reasonably sized hub airports, Gatwick would need cash for a third terminal or expansions to the existing ones, improved transport links and the upgrading of the second runway to a full time status. Likewise investing and expanding in Manchester would mean far less passengers having to travel down south for obscure destinations or for cheaper flights to long haul destinations. It would also inevitably mean more jobs in the north as a larger airport would support more jobs. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 27, 2023 15:28:57 GMT
You have the option of spoiling your ballot paper I don't think that that option is worth it. I'd rather stay at home if I dislike all the candidates. Then be mindful that people will say, as Paul mentioned, that you can’t really complain then. At least if you spoil your ballot, you can have a justification to complain in that sense though my own personal view is I’m not bothered whether you spoil it or simply stay away but I can fully understand why others might be bothered by someone staying away |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Aug 27, 2023 15:34:41 GMT
To be honest I only care about local issues, so would always vote based on local issues. In the 2019 General Election, and likely in the 2024 Mayoral, it'll come down to Hammersmith Bridge and the expansion of Heathrow. If they promise to fix the bridge quickly, or they campaigned against the Heathrow expansion, then they've got my vote! Couldn't care less about their party or the national result in general elections - will one constituency really change the overall picture? Also I don't really think national politics really affects us as individuals. However, having said that, I'm not sure I'd vote for Khan again considering his track record. In my local constituency in the General Election next Xmas, the opposite will be true as I really like my current MP. Also I would tend not to vote for someone who hasn't a chance. I’ve always felt the issue with Heathrow could be resolved by investing that money in Gatwick and Manchester instead. Both are reasonably sized hub airports, Gatwick would need cash for a third terminal or expansions to the existing ones, improved transport links and the upgrading of the second runway to a full time status. Likewise investing and expanding in Manchester would mean far less passengers having to travel down south for obscure destinations or for cheaper flights to long haul destinations. It would also inevitably mean more jobs in the north as a larger airport would support more jobs. Guess what, the locals at Gatwick don't want expansion there! |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Aug 27, 2023 15:38:26 GMT
I’ve always felt the issue with Heathrow could be resolved by investing that money in Gatwick and Manchester instead. Both are reasonably sized hub airports, Gatwick would need cash for a third terminal or expansions to the existing ones, improved transport links and the upgrading of the second runway to a full time status. Likewise investing and expanding in Manchester would mean far less passengers having to travel down south for obscure destinations or for cheaper flights to long haul destinations. It would also inevitably mean more jobs in the north as a larger airport would support more jobs. Guess what, the locals at Gatwick don't want expansion there! I’m sure they don’t with good reason but I’m sure the airport has been there a lot longer than most of them. I don’t support expanding Heathrow, it’s a horribly designed airport and isn’t modern at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Aug 27, 2023 15:51:51 GMT
To be honest I only care about local issues, so would always vote based on local issues. In the 2019 General Election, and likely in the 2024 Mayoral, it'll come down to Hammersmith Bridge and the expansion of Heathrow. If they promise to fix the bridge quickly, or they campaigned against the Heathrow expansion, then they've got my vote! Couldn't care less about their party or the national result in general elections - will one constituency really change the overall picture? Also I don't really think national politics really affects us as individuals. However, having said that, I'm not sure I'd vote for Khan again considering his track record. In my local constituency in the General Election next Xmas, the opposite will be true as I really like my current MP. Also I would tend not to vote for someone who hasn't a chance. I’ve always felt the issue with Heathrow could be resolved by investing that money in Gatwick and Manchester instead. Both are reasonably sized hub airports, Gatwick would need cash for a third terminal or expansions to the existing ones, improved transport links and the upgrading of the second runway to a full time status. Likewise investing and expanding in Manchester would mean far less passengers having to travel down south for obscure destinations or for cheaper flights to long haul destinations. It would also inevitably mean more jobs in the north as a larger airport would support more jobs. Gatwick and Manchester both wouldn't be worth it at all. Airlines don't want to fly to Gatwick, if you expand Gatwick the aim is to alleviate congestion at Heathrow but that won't end up happening because none of the airlines which currently hold Heathrow at capacity will voluntarily move a flight from Heathrow to Gatwick. Airlines such as Emirates and Qatar who fly to both Heathrow and Gatwick pretty much only use Gatwick for any overspill of services that they still very much would like to have at Heathrow. Virgin themselves didn't hesitate at all to move out of Gatwick when they needed to slim their route portfolio down. There's also the argument where if you forcibly move routes then people will move to Gatwick. But it doesn't work like that either. British Airways for example have a route network of flying to Indian cities such as Hyderabad and Chennai where there's no demand to fill an A380 out everyday but you can certainly fill planes if you base them out of Heathrow. Whenever I fly to Chennai I tend to use Emirates for unrelated reasons, but British Airways have to keep a route like that at Heathrow in order to compete with Emirates and Qatar. Move something like that to Gatwick and all that will happen is the passengers for the route will fly on competition instead, which in turn will cause issues for the UK economy as you've now lost people from British Airways who tend to have a higher benefit on the UK economy as opposed to helping the economy in Doha or Dubai. Likewise these routes, and other ones heavily rely on transit passengers funnelling through a single hub airport. British Airways again for their medium demand routes require passengers from North America to help fill planes. If you're flying from Vancouver to Delhi for example you're very likely to pick British Airways if you can transfer in Heathrow without leaving the building, but you'll probably end up flying Air France or Lufthansa if the BA change requires you leaving the airport and applying for a Visa while with Air France or Lufthansa you can easily change in Charles De Gaulle or Frankfurt trouble free. Then you have the issue with Manchester. The demand up north will not be able to sustain any obscure destinations. You need to order planes to match, and baring in mind that even Heathrow relies on foreign traffic to allow BA to serve obscure destinations you stand next to zero chance at Manchester. All that will happen if you expand Manchester is the UK's second airline Emirates will sweep in and start hoovering people up to Dubai instead because British Airways will show completely no interest in a move up north. There's not much incentive for a completely new airline to start up there either as routes which require bilaterals and have caps on the amount of flights are already maxed out by British Airways and Virgin Atlantic. The best solution for Manchester is the one that's already in place where people fly from Manchester to Heathrow with British Airways and change onto a larger plane at Heathrow filled with people from other corners of the world too where they can then continue their journeys. No matter what way you look at it the answer will always and every single time come back to Heathrow expansion as the only option. Expanding another airport is not the answer and while to an outsider it presents the opportunity of new jobs and local development the reality will not be the case. The Airline market is deregulated and airlines are free to do what they want, all you will end up doing is giving Dubai and Doha a massive boost to their own economies and the UK aviation economy will suffer as a result. People need to accept that and stop hindering the UK aviation economy. Dubai and Doha are already giants due to the UK's reluctance to get anything done. In the time it's taken us to even get remotely close to a decision, Doha has completely relocated its old airport to a new one which is said to be among the best in the world, and Dubai has expanded one of their Terminals with a building around the size of LHR Terminal 3. London to Dubai and London to Doha are some of the biggest aviation markets in the world and all that money is leaving the UK economy and heading straight to the Middle East as they're the people who are catering to people's travel needs. If anyone here thinks Heathrow is not the answer, I'd be very interested to hear your views in how you'd persuade private airlines to move their flights to a newly expanded Gatwick or even up North to Manchester. The British government cannot use laws to force specific airlines out, British Airways themselves are Spanish owned and aren't state owned. London's airports are not over capacity, the capacity exists at Stansted if needed. The issue is the capacity is unavailable at Heathrow and that's where everyone wants to fly. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Aug 27, 2023 16:03:21 GMT
If you don’t vote then you cannot complain about the actions of the duly elected Mayor. Voting takes seconds and polling stations are very easy to get to - I get terribly frustrated with those who say they can’t be bothered to vote; it’s the only voice we have to tell politicians what we really think of them and it’s something that’s been fought strongly for and shouldn’t be dismissed so frivolously But what if I don't like any of the candidates As vjaska said, you have the option of spoiling your ballot paper but you could also use your own advice and take ‘the lesser of two evils’ - there will always be a candidate with whom you can agree on a number of points even if you don’t like them personally. I haven’t always agreed with everything my local Conservative candidates have said but I agree with them far more than any Labour candidates or candidates from any other party so my vote usually goes to them It’s worth noting what another poster said as well regarding local issues - if you’re happy with how your area is being run both in terms of local councils and with your MP then vote to continue that even if it means voting for a candidate from a party you wouldn’t normally vote for Making a compromise in your vote is always better than simply not bothering |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Aug 27, 2023 16:54:29 GMT
I’ve always felt the issue with Heathrow could be resolved by investing that money in Gatwick and Manchester instead. Both are reasonably sized hub airports, Gatwick would need cash for a third terminal or expansions to the existing ones, improved transport links and the upgrading of the second runway to a full time status. Likewise investing and expanding in Manchester would mean far less passengers having to travel down south for obscure destinations or for cheaper flights to long haul destinations. It would also inevitably mean more jobs in the north as a larger airport would support more jobs. Gatwick and Manchester both wouldn't be worth it at all. Airlines don't want to fly to Gatwick, if you expand Gatwick the aim is to alleviate congestion at Heathrow but that won't end up happening because none of the airlines which currently hold Heathrow at capacity will voluntarily move a flight from Heathrow to Gatwick. Airlines such as Emirates and Qatar who fly to both Heathrow and Gatwick pretty much only use Gatwick for any overspill of services that they still very much would like to have at Heathrow. Virgin themselves didn't hesitate at all to move out of Gatwick when they needed to slim their route portfolio down. There's also the argument where if you forcibly move routes then people will move to Gatwick. But it doesn't work like that either. British Airways for example have a route network of flying to Indian cities such as Hyderabad and Chennai where there's no demand to fill an A380 out everyday but you can certainly fill planes if you base them out of Heathrow. Whenever I fly to Chennai I tend to use Emirates for unrelated reasons, but British Airways have to keep a route like that at Heathrow in order to compete with Emirates and Qatar. Move something like that to Gatwick and all that will happen is the passengers for the route will fly on competition instead, which in turn will cause issues for the UK economy as you've now lost people from British Airways who tend to have a higher benefit on the UK economy as opposed to helping the economy in Doha or Dubai. Likewise these routes, and other ones heavily rely on transit passengers funnelling through a single hub airport. British Airways again for their medium demand routes require passengers from North America to help fill planes. If you're flying from Vancouver to Delhi for example you're very likely to pick British Airways if you can transfer in Heathrow without leaving the building, but you'll probably end up flying Air France or Lufthansa if the BA change requires you leaving the airport and applying for a Visa while with Air France or Lufthansa you can easily change in Charles De Gaulle or Frankfurt trouble free. Then you have the issue with Manchester. The demand up north will not be able to sustain any obscure destinations. You need to order planes to match, and baring in mind that even Heathrow relies on foreign traffic to allow BA to serve obscure destinations you stand next to zero chance at Manchester. All that will happen if you expand Manchester is the UK's second airline Emirates will sweep in and start hoovering people up to Dubai instead because British Airways will show completely no interest in a move up north. There's not much incentive for a completely new airline to start up there either as routes which require bilaterals and have caps on the amount of flights are already maxed out by British Airways and Virgin Atlantic. The best solution for Manchester is the one that's already in place where people fly from Manchester to Heathrow with British Airways and change onto a larger plane at Heathrow filled with people from other corners of the world too where they can then continue their journeys. No matter what way you look at it the answer will always and every single time come back to Heathrow expansion as the only option. Expanding another airport is not the answer and while to an outsider it presents the opportunity of new jobs and local development the reality will not be the case. The Airline market is deregulated and airlines are free to do what they want, all you will end up doing is giving Dubai and Doha a massive boost to their own economies and the UK aviation economy will suffer as a result. People need to accept that and stop hindering the UK aviation economy. Dubai and Doha are already giants due to the UK's reluctance to get anything done. In the time it's taken us to even get remotely close to a decision, Doha has completely relocated its old airport to a new one which is said to be among the best in the world, and Dubai has expanded one of their Terminals with a building around the size of LHR Terminal 3. London to Dubai and London to Doha are some of the biggest aviation markets in the world and all that money is leaving the UK economy and heading straight to the Middle East as they're the people who are catering to people's travel needs. If anyone here thinks Heathrow is not the answer, I'd be very interested to hear your views in how you'd persuade private airlines to move their flights to a newly expanded Gatwick or even up North to Manchester. The British government cannot use laws to force specific airlines out, British Airways themselves are Spanish owned and aren't state owned. London's airports are not over capacity, the capacity exists at Stansted if needed. The issue is the capacity is unavailable at Heathrow and that's where everyone wants to fly. I do understand exactly what you’re saying and expanding Heathrow might be the safer option, it might even be the more sensible option but IMO what the UK economy doesn’t need is Heathrow having an even stronger hold on the aviation market within the UK. Our economy should have multiple hubs to enable it to remain viable and to enable long term growth solutions. Having a hub airport in the north would potentially allow it to become the economic powerhouse that has long been desired by various governments. It also doesn’t mean that airports have to move flights, they can grow naturally with demand. For example if BA knew that the majority of their London<>Manchester passengers were transitioning to New York or Dubai then where is the harm if offering flights direct? It means they can diversify and offer more seats from Heathrow. For me, where I’m standing, the future isn’t Heathrow. It has to be about diversifying the UKs as an aviation hub to cater for multiple markets. Heathrow is a joke of a hub, nobody should have to come off a long haul flight to face an over 30 minute walk to security and a further long walk to baggage where to are forced to wait another 30 minutes for luggage. People only fly from Heathrow because UK based long haul flight systems are purposely geared towards Heathrow and they have been for decades. Investing in improved transport links to Gatwick and improving Manchester would give airlines reasons to diversify their UK portfolios. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Aug 27, 2023 17:11:05 GMT
Gatwick and Manchester both wouldn't be worth it at all. Airlines don't want to fly to Gatwick, if you expand Gatwick the aim is to alleviate congestion at Heathrow but that won't end up happening because none of the airlines which currently hold Heathrow at capacity will voluntarily move a flight from Heathrow to Gatwick. Airlines such as Emirates and Qatar who fly to both Heathrow and Gatwick pretty much only use Gatwick for any overspill of services that they still very much would like to have at Heathrow. Virgin themselves didn't hesitate at all to move out of Gatwick when they needed to slim their route portfolio down. There's also the argument where if you forcibly move routes then people will move to Gatwick. But it doesn't work like that either. British Airways for example have a route network of flying to Indian cities such as Hyderabad and Chennai where there's no demand to fill an A380 out everyday but you can certainly fill planes if you base them out of Heathrow. Whenever I fly to Chennai I tend to use Emirates for unrelated reasons, but British Airways have to keep a route like that at Heathrow in order to compete with Emirates and Qatar. Move something like that to Gatwick and all that will happen is the passengers for the route will fly on competition instead, which in turn will cause issues for the UK economy as you've now lost people from British Airways who tend to have a higher benefit on the UK economy as opposed to helping the economy in Doha or Dubai. Likewise these routes, and other ones heavily rely on transit passengers funnelling through a single hub airport. British Airways again for their medium demand routes require passengers from North America to help fill planes. If you're flying from Vancouver to Delhi for example you're very likely to pick British Airways if you can transfer in Heathrow without leaving the building, but you'll probably end up flying Air France or Lufthansa if the BA change requires you leaving the airport and applying for a Visa while with Air France or Lufthansa you can easily change in Charles De Gaulle or Frankfurt trouble free. Then you have the issue with Manchester. The demand up north will not be able to sustain any obscure destinations. You need to order planes to match, and baring in mind that even Heathrow relies on foreign traffic to allow BA to serve obscure destinations you stand next to zero chance at Manchester. All that will happen if you expand Manchester is the UK's second airline Emirates will sweep in and start hoovering people up to Dubai instead because British Airways will show completely no interest in a move up north. There's not much incentive for a completely new airline to start up there either as routes which require bilaterals and have caps on the amount of flights are already maxed out by British Airways and Virgin Atlantic. The best solution for Manchester is the one that's already in place where people fly from Manchester to Heathrow with British Airways and change onto a larger plane at Heathrow filled with people from other corners of the world too where they can then continue their journeys. No matter what way you look at it the answer will always and every single time come back to Heathrow expansion as the only option. Expanding another airport is not the answer and while to an outsider it presents the opportunity of new jobs and local development the reality will not be the case. The Airline market is deregulated and airlines are free to do what they want, all you will end up doing is giving Dubai and Doha a massive boost to their own economies and the UK aviation economy will suffer as a result. People need to accept that and stop hindering the UK aviation economy. Dubai and Doha are already giants due to the UK's reluctance to get anything done. In the time it's taken us to even get remotely close to a decision, Doha has completely relocated its old airport to a new one which is said to be among the best in the world, and Dubai has expanded one of their Terminals with a building around the size of LHR Terminal 3. London to Dubai and London to Doha are some of the biggest aviation markets in the world and all that money is leaving the UK economy and heading straight to the Middle East as they're the people who are catering to people's travel needs. If anyone here thinks Heathrow is not the answer, I'd be very interested to hear your views in how you'd persuade private airlines to move their flights to a newly expanded Gatwick or even up North to Manchester. The British government cannot use laws to force specific airlines out, British Airways themselves are Spanish owned and aren't state owned. London's airports are not over capacity, the capacity exists at Stansted if needed. The issue is the capacity is unavailable at Heathrow and that's where everyone wants to fly. I do understand exactly what you’re saying and expanding Heathrow might be the safer option, it might even be the more sensible option but IMO what the UK economy doesn’t need is Heathrow having an even stronger hold on the aviation market within the UK. Our economy should have multiple hubs to enable it to remain viable and to enable long term growth solutions. Having a hub airport in the north would potentially allow it to become the economic powerhouse that has long been desired by various governments. It also doesn’t mean that airports have to move flights, they can grow naturally with demand. For example if BA knew that the majority of their London<>Manchester passengers were transitioning to New York or Dubai then where is the harm if offering flights direct? It means they can diversify and offer more seats from Heathrow. For me, where I’m standing, the future isn’t Heathrow. It has to be about diversifying the UKs as an aviation hub to cater for multiple markets. Heathrow is a joke of a hub, nobody should have to come off a long haul flight to face an over 30 minute walk to security and a further long walk to baggage where to are forced to wait another 30 minutes for luggage. People only fly from Heathrow because UK based long haul flight systems are purposely geared towards Heathrow and they have been for decades. Investing in improved transport links to Gatwick and improving Manchester would give airlines reasons to diversify their UK portfolios. The UK isn't big enough o sustain multiple hub airports. British Airways have the data to know where their northern passengers all fly, but it's always going to be at the expense of 'what if it was out of London instead'. New York and Dubai from Manchester would be popular, but they'd be even more popular out of Heathrow. Offering a direct flight out of Manchester to Dubai or New York also isn't easy when you need to get a Boeing 777 or 787 up to Manchester to fly the route which is a massive waste of money. The North just doesn't have anywhere near the demand that London does and unless Manchester becomes one of the world's biggest tourist destinations it's nothing short of a pipe dream. People will need a reason to specifically go to Manchester or incentive to fly through it. There's no incentive at all to fly through it as no hub airline has shown any interest at all of setting up there, which in itself is down to the city being completely unappealing for tourists. People also pay premiums to just fly through London, while to us Heathrow might be a mess of an airport, it still does very much set the standard for a lot of countries and British Airways is an airline people will fly premiums to fly with. Going back to my London to Chennai example, a flight with Emirates could set you back a grand while a flight with British Airways will set you back 3-4K instead as they know Heathrow has that buying power with its passengers. The UK market being geared towards Heathrow isn't down to the market but its location above all else. It's the closest airport geographically where you can often get a plane into and it's all that will ever matter. Heathrow is also privately owned so they do their own marketing to attract people so you can't just remove them from the equation too. Even if you manage to force BA out of the airport in an attempt to push people away, it's just a matter of time until other airlines take the space made available. Even EasyJet who are Gatwick's biggest airline have been trying to get into Heathrow but keep getting denied slots. I'm sure if they get slots at Heathrow they'd got a list of routes they'd not even hesitate to move into Heathrow. You can try to invest in high speed rail to Gatwick and Luton, but it still won't have an impact. Someone flying in from Qatar will not want the faff of getting a high speed rail line into the City when chances are that if they've managed to afford to fly in, they can afford the cost of getting a cab and public transport won't even be an option. When Emirates started Stansted flights they didn't even mention it was for London, they said their intention was to capture any lingering demand from Essex and despite Stansted is A380 capable of an airport they are only operating 777s in due to the demand levels. Heathrow is the only option, and will remain the only option as long as the airport is open. The only way to prevent it being an option that trumps all others is to completely close it, but that's not going to happen as doing so will not just take people away from Heathrow but also the country and give Charles de Gaulle and Schipol the passengers instead. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Aug 27, 2023 17:33:21 GMT
I do understand exactly what you’re saying and expanding Heathrow might be the safer option, it might even be the more sensible option but IMO what the UK economy doesn’t need is Heathrow having an even stronger hold on the aviation market within the UK. Our economy should have multiple hubs to enable it to remain viable and to enable long term growth solutions. Having a hub airport in the north would potentially allow it to become the economic powerhouse that has long been desired by various governments. It also doesn’t mean that airports have to move flights, they can grow naturally with demand. For example if BA knew that the majority of their London<>Manchester passengers were transitioning to New York or Dubai then where is the harm if offering flights direct? It means they can diversify and offer more seats from Heathrow. For me, where I’m standing, the future isn’t Heathrow. It has to be about diversifying the UKs as an aviation hub to cater for multiple markets. Heathrow is a joke of a hub, nobody should have to come off a long haul flight to face an over 30 minute walk to security and a further long walk to baggage where to are forced to wait another 30 minutes for luggage. People only fly from Heathrow because UK based long haul flight systems are purposely geared towards Heathrow and they have been for decades. Investing in improved transport links to Gatwick and improving Manchester would give airlines reasons to diversify their UK portfolios. The UK isn't big enough o sustain multiple hub airports. British Airways have the data to know where their northern passengers all fly, but it's always going to be at the expense of 'what if it was out of London instead'. New York and Dubai from Manchester would be popular, but they'd be even more popular out of Heathrow. Offering a direct flight out of Manchester to Dubai or New York also isn't easy when you need to get a Boeing 777 or 787 up to Manchester to fly the route which is a massive waste of money. The North just doesn't have anywhere near the demand that London does and unless Manchester becomes one of the world's biggest tourist destinations it's nothing short of a pipe dream. People will need a reason to specifically go to Manchester or incentive to fly through it. There's no incentive at all to fly through it as no hub airline has shown any interest at all of setting up there, which in itself is down to the city being completely unappealing for tourists. People also pay premiums to just fly through London, while to us Heathrow might be a mess of an airport, it still does very much set the standard for a lot of countries and British Airways is an airline people will fly premiums to fly with. Going back to my London to Chennai example, a flight with Emirates could set you back a grand while a flight with British Airways will set you back 3-4K instead as they know Heathrow has that buying power with its passengers. The UK market being geared towards Heathrow isn't down to the market but its location above all else. It's the closest airport geographically where you can often get a plane into and it's all that will ever matter. Heathrow is also privately owned so they do their own marketing to attract people so you can't just remove them from the equation too. Even if you manage to force BA out of the airport in an attempt to push people away, it's just a matter of time until other airlines take the space made available. Even EasyJet who are Gatwick's biggest airline have been trying to get into Heathrow but keep getting denied slots. I'm sure if they get slots at Heathrow they'd got a list of routes they'd not even hesitate to move into Heathrow. You can try to invest in high speed rail to Gatwick and Luton, but it still won't have an impact. Someone flying in from Qatar will not want the faff of getting a high speed rail line into the City when chances are that if they've managed to afford to fly in, they can afford the cost of getting a cab and public transport won't even be an option. When Emirates started Stansted flights they didn't even mention it was for London, they said their intention was to capture any lingering demand from Essex and despite Stansted is A380 capable of an airport they are only operating 777s in due to the demand levels. Heathrow is the only option, and will remain the only option as long as the airport is open. The only way to prevent it being an option that trumps all others is to completely close it, but that's not going to happen as doing so will not just take people away from Heathrow but also the country and give Charles de Gaulle and Schipol the passengers instead. Of course the UK is big enough to sustain multiple airport hubs. Heathrow has created a situation where it can charge what it wants to airlines so they have to keep ticket prices higher. That’s why the Heathrow Express and Elizabeth Line cost a small fortune because of the charges Heathrow levies to TfL. It’s also why they were refused permission to increase the passenger fees to £40 and are now faced with a forced 20% cut by the CAA. Having a second hub is about passing choice onto passengers and whilst you would have passengers who would prefer to use Heathrow if the ticket price savings were there by using a different airport then you would equally have some who would opt to use other airports. Besides think of the pollution saved by not needing to fly or drive from the north to Heathrow for a flight? It would offset the increase in flights. As for flying to the US and Dubai, both Virgin Atlantic and Emirates manage it from Manchester with the former using it as a hub for multiple US destinations. So it can work and like I said if Manchester is on track to grow in population in the next few years with an expected growth to around 3 million by 2030 it would make sense to invest in further growth now to ensure that increased population is better served without having to travel hundreds of miles. To be clear though I’m not saying Heathrow shouldn’t exist but we as a country need to have more options and instead of containing capacity to the south it is time to diversify to expand air travel options elsewhere. I’m not talking about forcing BA out of Heathrow but ultimately there is only so much it can expand before the UK aviation market loses momentum. |
|
