On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 16:33:27 GMT, Peter Lynch <pete@freyr.local> wrote:

>Doesn't matter. If you're going from Birmingham to (e.g.) Cape Town, or vice-versa
>it makes no difference to you if you change planes at LHR or CDG. I.e. Birmingham
>to London to Cape Town, rather than Birmingham to Paris to Cape Town. However
>if you change at Heathrow, you're using up capacity that denies a visitor
>(not a transit passsenger) a flight into London.


If you have them transit in another country they are very likely to be using a
non British airline, hence revenue lost to a British company.

Like wise the passenger handling fee is lost to BAA.

While I don't doubt some of those transit passengers would be replaced by
staying passengers it would take some considerable time to replace 22 million
transit passengers a year.
--  
Lansbury (Retired)
www.uk-air.net
FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup

Lansbury wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 16:33:27 GMT, Peter Lynch <pete@freyr.local>
> wrote:
>
>> Doesn't matter. If you're going from Birmingham to (e.g.) Cape Town,
>> or vice-versa it makes no difference to you if you change planes at
>> LHR or CDG. I.e. Birmingham to London to Cape Town, rather than
>> Birmingham to Paris to Cape Town. However
>> if you change at Heathrow, you're using up capacity that denies a
>> visitor (not a transit passsenger) a flight into London.
>
>
> If you have them transit in another country they are very likely to
> be using a non British airline, hence revenue lost to a British
> company.
>
> Like wise the passenger handling fee is lost to BAA.
>
> While I don't doubt some of those transit passengers would be
> replaced by staying passengers it would take some considerable time
> to replace 22 million transit passengers a year.

Whilst there would be no income from them, there would also be no 
expenditure to provide for them. Sometime one can be better of by not 
accepting business (up to a point of course).

"Lansbury"  wrote in message 
news:8pss6453r9edn2cakn6dv963754s05n17n@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 16:33:27 GMT, Peter Lynch <pete@freyr.local> wrote:
>
>>Doesn't matter. If you're going from Birmingham to (e.g.) Cape Town, or 
>>vice-versa
>>it makes no difference to you if you change planes at LHR or CDG. I.e. 
>>Birmingham
>>to London to Cape Town, rather than Birmingham to Paris to Cape Town. 
>>However
>>if you change at Heathrow, you're using up capacity that denies a visitor
>>(not a transit passsenger) a flight into London.
>
>
> If you have them transit in another country they are very likely to be 
> using a
> non British airline, hence revenue lost to a British company.
>
> Like wise the passenger handling fee is lost to BAA.
>
> While I don't doubt some of those transit passengers would be replaced by
> staying passengers it would take some considerable time to replace 22 
> million
> transit passengers a year.

The problem that I have with the Heathrow expansion plan is the expectation 
that it is going to be funded by putting up fees to pay for it, before (and 
whilst) it is built.

ISTM that either the expansion is a commercial venture or it is 
strategically necessity (or some combination thereof).

If it is claimed to be a commercial venture then it should be paid for in 
the same way that every other commercial venture is paid for - by borrowing 
money in the markets and repaying that money out of the extra fees that the 
new facility gain (or not paying if that extra business doesn't 
materialise).  Tesco don't put up their prices in Little Piddleton to pay 
for the building of a new, bigger, store in Greater Piddleton, so why should 
BAA?

OTOH, if it is claimed to be a strategic necessity then ISTM that transfer 
pax are of little benefit to the bulk of GB PLC and should be disregarded 
when assessing the strategic need.

Tim

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
news:XNnkm217zxbIFABP@perry.co.uk...
> In message , at 21:21:12 on Fri, 4 Jul 
> 2008, tim.....  remarked:
>>OTOH, if it is claimed to be a strategic necessity then ISTM that transfer
>>pax are of little benefit to the bulk of GB PLC and should be disregarded
>>when assessing the strategic need.
>
> Transfer passengers are of benefit (ignoring the money they spend waiting 
> for a plane) because a significant number have transferred from a UK 
> domestic destination, and would otherwise have changed planes at Schiphol, 
> CDG, or even New York, to get to their eventual destination.

Yes you are right, I should have said international (to international) 
transfer pax.

> And *all* the transfer passengers whether domestic or from further afield 
> help maintain the critical mass of flights especially direct ones

I agree that this is an advantage, but I just don't think that LHR scores 
any points for this, there are more than enough flights to lots of 
destinations already.

tim

> to slightly less popular destinations. I can remember when it was only 
> possible to fly direct to Seattle three times a week, for example, even 
> from Heathrow.
> -- 
> Roland Perry

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
news:MmdSMEIR01bIFAhl@perry.co.uk...
> In message , at 11:37:52 on Sat, 5 Jul 
> 2008, tim.....  remarked:
>>> And *all* the transfer passengers whether domestic or from further 
>>> afield
>>> help maintain the critical mass of flights especially direct ones
>>
>>I agree that this is an advantage, but I just don't think that LHR scores
>>any points for this, there are more than enough flights to lots of
>>destinations already.
>
> [Just picking one example] I don't think you can fly to Seattle from 
> anywhere else in the UK, and as I've noted earlier, there wasn't enough 
> demand to fly daily last time I went; but there is now. Having 
> international transfer passengers helps boost the numbers and make a daily 
> flight economic.

You don't think that the increase in importance of the town as an IT centre 
may have created more of a reason for business people to want to fly there?

tim

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
news:b1jnoLOoA3bIFADG@perry.co.uk...
> In message , at 13:21:48 on Sat, 5 Jul 
> 2008, tim.....  remarked:
>>> [Just picking one example] I don't think you can fly to Seattle from
>>> anywhere else in the UK, and as I've noted earlier, there wasn't enough
>>> demand to fly daily last time I went; but there is now. Having
>>> international transfer passengers helps boost the numbers and make a 
>>> daily
>>> flight economic.
>>
>>You don't think that the increase in importance of the town as an IT 
>>centre
>>may have created more of a reason for business people to want to fly 
>>there?
>
> It doesn't matter why they fly there, it's flying via London that matters.

No, what I meant was, the demand from London (and surrounding) has gone up 
because of this reason and hence the frequency of the flights increased 
because of local demand, not because of connecting opportunities.

tim

On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 21:21:12 +0100, "tim....." 
wrote:

>If it is claimed to be a commercial venture then it should be paid for in 
>the same way that every other commercial venture is paid for - by borrowing 
>money in the markets


Problem with that is Ferrovial borrowed so much to buy BAA, and are
desperately trying to restructure those loans, that I doubt especially in the
current financial climate that anyone is going to lend them money to make
improvements with.

--  
Lansbury (Retired)
www.uk-air.net
FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup

"Lansbury"  wrote in message 
news:lbh274l0u7vphpgd7sfonkqdas0o8ineur@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 21:21:12 +0100, "tim....." 
> wrote:
>
>>If it is claimed to be a commercial venture then it should be paid for in
>>the same way that every other commercial venture is paid for - by 
>>borrowing
>>money in the markets
>
>
> Problem with that is Ferrovial borrowed so much to buy BAA, and are
> desperately trying to restructure those loans, that I doubt especially in 
> the
> current financial climate that anyone is going to lend them money to make
> improvements with.

But that is their problem,

Making this problem for themselves does not entitle them to demand that 
someone else pay for the new construction


tim

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:28:13 +0100, "tim....." 
wrote:

>But that is their problem,
>

Indeed so they can solve it how they want.

>Making this problem for themselves does not entitle them to demand that 
>someone else pay for the new construction

They are entitled to ask whatever they like for the services they provide, as
is anyone else who sells something. 

Whether people choose to buy it is they choice.

What BAA do with the money they raise from selling their services is their
choice.
--  
Lansbury (Retired)
www.uk-air.net
FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup

"Lansbury"  wrote in message 
news:h90574tdmbd0sc98prpi86u2sr9blmv37e@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:28:13 +0100, "tim....." 
> wrote:
>
>>But that is their problem,
>>
>
> Indeed so they can solve it how they want.
>
>>Making this problem for themselves does not entitle them to demand that
>>someone else pay for the new construction
>
> They are entitled to ask whatever they like for the services they provide, 
> as
> is anyone else who sells something.

Not they aren't they are a regulated supplier.  They cannot chose to 
increase their prices.  The Government has to give permission.

> Whether people choose to buy it is they choice.

They are regulated for a reason.  That reason being that their customers 
(the airlines) can't (logistically) just go elsewhere.

tim

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 18:10:48 +0100, "tim....." 
wrote:

>> They are entitled to ask whatever they like for the services they provide, 
>> as
>> is anyone else who sells something.
>
>Not they aren't they are a regulated supplier.  They cannot chose to 
>increase their prices.  The Government has to give permission.
>

Regulation doesn't alter the fact they can choose to ask the Government for
whatever raise they wish.


>> Whether people choose to buy it is they choice.
>
>They are regulated for a reason.  That reason being that their customers 
>(the airlines) can't (logistically) just go elsewhere.

The passenger handling fee is collected by the airlines, but paid for in the
extra taxes and fees by the passenger. The passenger can choose whatever
airport or other method of travel they want too. Nobody is forced to us
Heathrow, there are other choices.

Again how they choose to finance improvements is their business decision and
they can do it however they think best for themselves. Now it might not be
fair or reasonable to make current passengers pay for future improvements but
BAA can do so if they wish.

--  
Lansbury (Retired)
www.uk-air.net
FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup

"Lansbury"  wrote in message 
news:o3qc74tvjgt610r6pairvssp0a5ilp61t9@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 18:10:48 +0100, "tim....." 
> wrote:
>
>>> They are entitled to ask whatever they like for the services they 
>>> provide,
>>> as
>>> is anyone else who sells something.
>>
>>Not they aren't they are a regulated supplier.  They cannot chose to
>>increase their prices.  The Government has to give permission.
>>
>
> Regulation doesn't alter the fact they can choose to ask the Government 
> for
> whatever raise they wish.
>

I never suggested that they shouldn't be allowed to ask

I was suggesing that they shouldn't be given permission.

My previous comments were aimed squarely at the people who are going to give 
permission for this expansion, not those seeking it.

>>> Whether people choose to buy it is they choice.
>>
>>They are regulated for a reason.  That reason being that their customers
>>(the airlines) can't (logistically) just go elsewhere.
>
> The passenger handling fee is collected by the airlines, but paid for in 
> the
> extra taxes and fees by the passenger. The passenger can choose whatever
> airport or other method of travel they want too. Nobody is forced to us
> Heathrow, there are other choices.
>
> Again how they choose to finance improvements is their business decision 
> and
> they can do it however they think best for themselves. Now it might not be
> fair or reasonable to make current passengers pay for future improvements 
> but
> BAA can do so if they wish.

Only if HMG lets them.

tim

Lansbury wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 21:21:12 +0100, "tim....." 
> wrote:
> 
>> If it is claimed to be a commercial venture then it should be paid for in 
>> the same way that every other commercial venture is paid for - by borrowing 
>> money in the markets
> 
> 
> Problem with that is Ferrovial borrowed so much to buy BAA, and are
> desperately trying to restructure those loans, that I doubt especially in the
> current financial climate that anyone is going to lend them money to make
> improvements with.

This is the technique of so-called private equity take over, usually by 
companies with putting very little equity in. They borrow loads of 
money, put that on the target companies balance sheet, and then the 
profits of said company are used both to provide a return to the PE 
company and pay the interest on the huge loan.

This was the way of the world till credit became tighter and more 
expensive. Now as you say, there are frantic attempts to "restructure" 
these enormous debts the companies never asked for in the first place.

BAA is caught in that trap at the moment.

-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin