LHR transfer figures

Often hard to find, these figures quoted today by Willie Walsh:

"He explained that on Heathrow flights to and from Manchester, 75% of
passengers were transferring. On services to and from Leeds/Bradford,
Newcastle and Tees-side, the proportion was between 55% and 60%.
On flights to and from Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen, transfer traffic
accounted for nearly half of all passengers."

Elsewhere:

"Transfer passengers account for 23 million passengers at Heathrow, out
of an annual total of 68 million travellers."
--
Roland Perry

In message <g3vv81$2fn$1@registered.motzarella.org>, at 12:40:50 on Thu,
26 Jun 2008, William Black <william.black@.uk> remarked:
>> Often hard to find, these figures quoted today by Willie Walsh:
>>
>> "He explained that on Heathrow flights to and from Manchester, 75% of
>> passengers were transferring. On services to and from Leeds/Bradford,
>> Newcastle and Tees-side, the proportion was between 55% and 60%.
>> On flights to and from Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen, transfer traffic
>> accounted for nearly half of all passengers."
>>
>> Elsewhere:
>>
>> "Transfer passengers account for 23 million passengers at Heathrow, out of
>> an annual total of 68 million travellers."
>
>It seems he doesn't like transfer passengers making his airport look
>untidy...
>
>What does he want the majority of people who live in these islands to do
>when they want to catch a scheduled international flight?
>
>Perhaps he would prefer us all to carry our luggage on the rather dirty and
>very hot underground train or park our cars at his extortionate rates?

Quite the reverse. Willie Walsh is trying hard to justify the merit of
transfer passengers.
--
Roland Perry

In message
<657e0fe0-fef9-4d1d-aa91-d4bbc05d25c3@25g2000hsx..com>, at
05:23:54 on Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Neil Williams <pacer142@>
remarked:
>> What does he want the majority of people who live in these islands to do
>> when they want to catch a scheduled international flight?
>
>Travelling by rail to the airport would be the best approach,
>especially if connections could be guaranteed. Many people choose
>(expensive) connecting UK flights only because they won't end up
>losing their long-haul ticket if there is a delay.

The lack of a direct and regular rail link from anywhere but London to
LHR is a serious disincentive. As a result I will generally continue to
drive to Birmingham (1hr) and then change to a long haul flight
somewhere like AMS or CDG.
--
Roland Perry

Neil Williams wrote:

>LUL as a system is filthy, though admittedly most of it is brake dust.
>
Actually, whenever I have heard the topic being discussed (in the
context of air filters on propulsion systems) it turned out that
there was a particularly large proportion of dead skin, hair and
clothing fibres.

Chris

"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:iK3Zni33j2YIFAvG@perry.co.uk...
> Often hard to find, these figures quoted today by Willie Walsh:
>
> "He explained that on Heathrow flights to and from Manchester, 75% of
> passengers were transferring. On services to and from Leeds/Bradford,
> Newcastle and Tees-side, the proportion was between 55% and 60%.
> On flights to and from Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen, transfer traffic
> accounted for nearly half of all passengers."
>
So build an HSL between London/Heathrow and
Manchester/Leeds/Teesside/Newcastle/Glasgow/
Edinburgh. Ditch the connecting flights to these places, and Heathrow will
have more slots for international flights, or, preferably, not use these
slots so that scheduling can be more robust. Allow through airline booking
on the connecting trains so that a passenger missing a connection from the
train is treated no worse than one missing a connection from a connecting
flight.

And tell anyone who thinks Heathrow needs a third runway that they cannot
prove the case until the HSL exists.

Peter

In message <CuqdnRF-UJeTPv7VnZ2dnUVZ8uCdnZ2d@bt.com>, at 15:09:43 on
Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Peter Masson <peter.masson1@> remarked:
>So build an HSL between London/Heathrow and
>Manchester/Leeds/Teesside/Newcastle/Glasgow/
>Edinburgh.

It needs to stop in the Midlands too, otherwise I'll be continuing to
fly from BHX to hubs in continental Europe.
--
Roland Perry

In message <NcadnaBGJem34fnVnZ2dnUVZ8qDinZ2d@eclipse.net.uk >, at
06:35:37 on Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Philip Hardy <philip@phardy.karoo.co.uk>
remarked:

>>> So build an HSL between London/Heathrow and
>>> Manchester/Leeds/Teesside/Newcastle/Glasgow/
>>> Edinburgh.
>> It needs to stop in the Midlands too, otherwise I'll be continuing
>>to fly from BHX to hubs in continental Europe.
>
>Well I've got to say that I find that getting a train from East Yorks.
>to London, then the Heathrow Express or Underground to the airport is
>rather easier than flying from Humberside to Schipol and changing
>there. And it's often cheaper.

I find the reverse. It's at least three hours from Nottingham to LHR by
train (via St Pancras), with one fast and one slow train an hour meaning
it's effectively one train an hour. BHX is an hour away by car, at any
clockface time I require.

I've never yet found that a long haul fare via Schiphol fails to be
cheaper than the fare from LHR.

>I've never had a bad experience at LHR. Quite the opposite infact. When
>arriving back from Calgary last year at Terminal 3 it took me no more
>than 20 minutes from getting off the aircraft to getting on the
>Underground train (including picking up my case). Can't complain.

That's extremely fast! I normally time from landing to getting on a
train, and these days LHR and LGW can rarely better an hour. Last time I
landed at LGW it took more than 20 minutes to walk/train from the gate
to the railway station (and that's without bags to collect). But that's
not my main objection to LGW/LHR - more that they are such dumps with
excessive security queues; and too many of the flights I would catch
leave at 7am, which is simply too early if you are travelling from the
Midlands.

>I'll be traveling through T5 in a few weeks time. We'll see how it goes.

Do let us know.
--
Roland Perry

On 26 Jun, 18:14, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <CuqdnRF-UJeTPv7VnZ2dnUVZ8uCdn...@bt.com>, at 15:09:43 on
> Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Peter Masson <peter.mass...@> remarked:
>
> >So build an HSL between London/Heathrow and
> >Manchester/Leeds/Teesside/Newcastle/Glasgow/
> >Edinburgh.
>
> It needs to stop in the Midlands too, otherwise I'll be continuing to
> fly from BHX to hubs in continental Europe.

I would love to never have the joys of Bankfurt again and a decent
connection into Heathrow from Birmingham would probably do that for
me.

When BA flew from BHX, I used to "do" Heathrow for those destinations
I couldn't handle ex-BHX. It involved a Chiltern to Marylebone, the
205 to Paddington and HEx. I did try the bus from High Wycombe once
and found it's timetable to be in the Booker Prize for Fiction list.

Iain

Neil Williams wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 06:48:42 -0700 (PDT), Iain <iain.bowen@>
> wrote:
>
> >I would love to never have the joys of Bankfurt again and a decent
> >connection into Heathrow from Birmingham would probably do that for
> >me.
>
> How about AMS?

I don't mind AMS at all, but KLM are very low on my list of long haul
carriers and most of my short haul needs for work are catered by
Lufthansa better.

Btw, has anyone done Melbourne-Sydney by train. I have a chance to do
it in January and I'm wondering if it's worth the extra cost.