Heathrow appoints its new CEO

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.

• G says:

  1 Jul1 July 07:45

  Lets hope he does a good job.

  Can someone wiser please explain why BA are Jekyll/Hyde about Heathrow Expansion? As customers, Heathrow could do with more capacity; more slots and more contingency in case of disruption.

  The bottlenecks at Heathrow affect BA the most, out of any airline, yet I read that BA has been much more lukewarm about LHR expansion than other airlines (like Virgin and Qatar).

  I’ve always assumed BA have run the numbers and concluded more slots and contingency would increase competition and erode their monopoly and even though LHR is constrained, it works to BA’s advantage – not the flying public or its competitors.

  More context / info would be great !!

  • Rob says:

    1 Jul1 July 07:58

    BA is the big loser. It was keen when it was thought it could have 50% of the new slots but various rulings since then have made it less likely.

    Only effect of the runway would be to bankrupt Gatwick with no real net passenger gain.

  • JDB says:

    1 Jul1 July 08:14

    BA does indeed speak with forked tongue about expansion, charges and many other issues. As you suggest BA wishes to keep its stranglehold at LHR but it claims its principal objections relate to how expansion would be paid for and that the passenger charge shouldn’t be used partially to pay for it. BA is currently spending £millions both appealing the H7 settlement decision and intervening in Heathrow’s own appeal. That cost will of course be borne by passengers. While it appeals matters involving perhaps £1 per pax, BA surcharges of £250+ are seemingly fine. There is also the huge APD.

    The government won’t contribute towards expansion so it needs to be entirely privately funded, adding c.£4-5 to the charge. The charge that some claim is already too high is partly higher owing to the curfew and movement cap that doesn’t impact all airports as well as all the services the airport has to pay for that are usually paid by governments.

    BA is even more opposed to moving to any potential new airport.

  • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:

    1 Jul1 July 08:17

    Certainly under Willie it was all about money and often “why should BA customers pay for other airlines customers to have a nicer terminal”

    Bit hypocritical when the other airlines part funded T5 via the HAL charges because it certainly wasn’t 100% BA funded (other than specific BA elements like the lounges and equipment and IT). Mind BA also part funded T2 under the same finance model but Wilkie never let accuracy get in the way of his rants.

    My view has always been build the 3rd runway and T6 – because those extra flights will need gates etc – or finish 5C and T2 properly but don’t utilise it fully. Only permit a limited amount of extra slots so that the overall airport capacity falls to something like 70-80% of capacity to allow headroom for irrops. Which would actually help BA and save it some money!

    Not sure what Sean Doyle thinks of expansion but given the last couple of years it’s likely not been that high up on his to do list. But completion of 5C (plus a little reorganisation) would allow BA to operate entirely from T5 and save some money by removing the duplications needed because of the split terminal ops.

    • JDB says:

      1 Jul1 July 08:35

      @BA Flyer IHG Stayer – BA has no wish to put all its operations in T5 even though it would save money and be better for BA passengers. It doesn’t currently squat in T3 through need…

      • Chris W says:

        1 Jul1 July 10:09

        As a security officer pointed out to me once, Terminal 5 isn’t actually that big of a terminal.

    • Bagoly says:

      1 Jul1 July 08:41

      The last document I read had number of flight movements increasing by slightly *more*
      than 50%! i.e. congestion would get worse, leaving even less margin for irrops.
      You are right that the sensible thing would be to use the additional capacity to reduce the utilisation rate, but I guess the authors needed to show the additional income exceeding the additional costs.

    • Bagoly says:

      1 Jul1 July 08:50

      By “finish T2 properly” do you mean complete the toast rack?
      Trains are already a nightmare with three separate stations, so the last bad approach would seem to be that any T6 would be a satellite of T5, although that does mean longer journey times.

      • Rob says:

        1 Jul1 July 09:02

        T2 will be extended sideways into the old T1 footprint. This was always the plan and the existing building was planned to allow this.

        • JDB says:

          1 Jul1 July 09:14

          That’s the plan, but it will be quite a while though! T1 can’t be demolished until the new T2 baggage system (that wasn’t allowed by the CAA at the time of building) is completed, which will probably be by 2028/9. The retrofitting is incredibly complex anyway but even more difficult to achieve in such a constrained site. It would appear that the dismantling and removal of the multi floor luggage system in T1 prior to demolition will also be very challenging including problems of very inaccessible asbestos.

      • Chris W says:

        1 Jul1 July 11:54

        Unless the terminals are walking distance apart (which only T2 and T3 are) what option do they have beyond three plus separate stations?

  • Jack says:

    1 Jul1 July 09:21

    I doubt a 3rd runway will happen anytime soon if ever for many reasons . BAs head office would also need to be knocked down in order to build it as it crosses where the proposed runway would be . Gatwick should have a 2nd runway not a 3rd at Heathrow really . Another runway doesn’t mean more slots or extra capacity

    • Nick says:

      1 Jul1 July 09:53

      Just about the only bit of the expansion BA is happy about is having their oversized HQ compulsorily purchased! The main reason they’re lukewarm though is because of the inevitable dilution of yields. They’d like to grow at Heathrow, but over a much longer period of time.

      HAL’s business case for expansion doesn’t allow for extra room for contingency, any third runway was always intended to be used as intensively as the others. Plus they’re greedy bastards so of course they’ll max it out as soon as they can. The only difference is that they’ve (at least on paper) agreed to a proper night curfew, so the 4-6am Far East arrivals would have to be retimed. This has knock on impacts though, particularly for cargo which can’t be transshipped quickly enough and loses competitiveness.

      The cost is passenger fees, which are already in the region of £50-60 per person for a longhaul departure, and HAL intend to increase this by at least £10. This is the main objection for most airlines… at what point does it become unsustainable?

      • JDB says:

        1 Jul1 July 10:15

        @Nick – the passenger service charge you cite is, as you say, only for long haul flights – currently £55.81 but for short haul it is £23.18. The regulatory maximum overall per passenger charge is currently £31.57 and how it is split between long/short haul is largely determined, with much debate, by the airline user committee.

      • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:

        1 Jul1 July 12:04

        That was one of willies moans.

        He’d get £200m for waterside but BA will have contributed £100m of that via the expansion funding model,

      • Jack says:

        1 Jul1 July 21:12

        HAL have already been told they cannot increase charges and these are going to fall as they should . There is no reason Heathrow should charge the absurd rates if does now . I doubt any airline would be happy having their head office ripped apart for something that heathrow doesn’t need whereas a airport like gatwick can benefit from a 2nd runway . As you say their is many complications which is why I can’t see it happening any time soon if ever as many have objected to it

        • Rob says:

          1 Jul1 July 21:28

          Charges would be reassessed if the 3rd runway happened, with the capital cost added on to landing fees. This is how the system works. They don’t pay for the new runway from the existing landing fees – they pay for it from money they borrow secured against the increase in future landing fees.

  • Chris W says:

    1 Jul1 July 11:51

    Same reason HEX didn’t want the Elizabeth line built

    • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:

      1 Jul1 July 12:24

      Originally Lizzie wasn’t going anywhere near Heathrow so it had nothing to complain about!

      Going to LHR was a relatively late addition to the scheme and trains weren’t even going to go to T5 until much later.

      Now HAL rakes in the passenger access fees for use of its tunnels and stations.

• Alex Sm says:

  1 Jul1 July 08:28

  How will it look reputationally if you fight a very high-profile fight with all possible means involved to allow the expansion and finally, when you have a green light, you decide not to move forward? What a nonsense!

  • Rob says:

    1 Jul1 July 09:04

    In a world of high interest rates it makes no sense. Remember it involves demolishing two whole villages plus every hotel etc in Bath Road and tunnelling an 8 lane motorway (whilst keeping it open). What could go wrong?

    There is no real net gain to the UK is all that happens is all Gatwick flights move.

    • Alex Sm says:

      2 Jul2 July 14:48

      But all these factors are not new. Why were they not the obstacle back in the day of High Court hearings and govt announcements? And why are you so sure that Gatwick will have to close?

      • Rob says:

        2 Jul2 July 15:00

        Interest rates have been low through this entire period.

        Gatwick won’t close but it will lose all long haul flights, almost certainly. It is doubtful if the runway will change the overall total of flights from London.

• TimM says:

  1 Jul1 July 09:23

  Those trains heading for scrap usually end up in the North as our new trains.

  • Qrfan says:

    1 Jul1 July 09:28

    You should see ever they’re running on the Isle of Wight. It’s not just the North that gets old stock 🙂

    • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:

      1 Jul1 July 10:52

      But isn’t that more because the IOW uses the same power system and track gauges as the underground and it’s the most economical way to get new trains is to get them from TFL?

      • Rob says:

        1 Jul1 July 10:58

        The stations are not that far apart in places – tube stock is probably better suited for that sort of stop/start operation. The power supplies etc are already in place. Would be disproportionately expensive to change it.

        • qrfan says:

          1 Jul1 July 12:56

          All true but have you seen the stock! I grew up down there and it always seemed about 5 generations older than what London was using. My only use of it was avoiding a 1/4 mile walk with a heavy cricket bag though, so i would have happily taken anything.

  • Nick says:

    1 Jul1 July 09:55

    The DLR is not proper trains. There’s no infrastructure in the north they could be put onto.

    Plus let’s not forget that Northern, TPE and Merseyrail have all recently received large quantities of new build stock. Cascades have largely fallen out of favour.

    • RussellH says:

      1 Jul1 July 12:51

      I assume that by “proper trains” you mean heavy rail, which is true. The clue is in the name – Dockland **Light** Railway.
      The UK, for whatever reason, has never been that keen on light railways, in spite of the success of the DLR.
      There are places elsewhere in the UK that, arguably, could benefit from light rail infrastructure, but too many people would see it as “cheap” and “not proper trains”.

  • Dubious says:

    3 Jul3 July 00:23

    The IOW Line recently (in the last year) upgraded their rolling stock to the more recent 1970’s trains.

• sayling says:

  1 Jul1 July 09:39

  I hope a new terminal at Heathrow will be designated as Terminal 1 and not Terminal 6.

  It feels irksome to not have a T1.

  As an aside, I saw a London Underground ad on the tube last month referring to the tube connections to terminals 1-4, with a sticker addendum regarding T5.

  • Chris W says:

    1 Jul1 July 11:51

    Agreed. Why wouldnt you name it T1

• WaynedP says:

  1 Jul1 July 10:17

  Admittedly I’m no journalist, but I was led to believe that articles should answer the basic who, what, when, where & how questions.

  So when is the handover from JHK to TW due to occur ?

  • Rob says:

    1 Jul1 July 10:45

    We don’t know. We just repeat what we’re told on this one!

    • WaynedP says:

      1 Jul1 July 11:49

      You folk are far better than that, Rob and you know it.

      Please don’t diminish your trademark approach of always aiming to add value and insight which goes beyond that usually available to non-insiders by equating it to what might be expected of a student copy-writer on work experience.

      I appreciate it’s just a “bits” piece rather than a fully researched article at the moment, but if @JDB can furnish fundamental added detail, then so could you (collective plural) have done.

      • Rob says:

        1 Jul1 July 12:37

        If you nip out and buy a Financial Times today you’ll see that the article on this also doesn’t mention a start date.

  • JDB says:

    1 Jul1 July 11:13

    The new CEO is officially supposed to start his role on 1 October (and yes, I know it’s a Sunday).

    • Rhys says:

      1 Jul1 July 11:56

      He’s due to step down at CPH at the end of September but no official date has been given for his start at Heathrow.

• Paul Crimea says:

  1 Jul1 July 10:31

  BA have a dominant position at LHR. Increasing capacity reduces their ability to overcharge for mediocre service.

• flyforfun says:

  1 Jul1 July 11:01

  I think residents will be relieved. I knew people that had a flat at then end of the dock. I loved watching the planes take of and land, but conversation had to stop as the went by.

  It would be good if they could extend Saturday to 2pm to allow a few more flights out and 11 on a Sunday.

• L Allen says:

  1 Jul1 July 11:16

  I was offered 60% Bonvoy bonus. Is it worth buying some points? I don’t really chase hotel loyalty as I tend to stay in independent boutique hotels that often aren’t part of a chain. However, to contradict myself, I have been staying in Marriotts a lot this year and have been pleased how they recognise the status Amex gives me.

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.