Business airlines

That "La Compagnie" is starting business only flights from London to New York (Newark) as reported in Business Traveller (3-2-15) can only be welcomed. The business traveller might well ask why he/she cannot get that bit extra exclusivity when paying that (large) extra on a trip.

 "La Compagnie launches all-business London-New York flights" (Buying Business Travel 3-2-15)

 "French airline offers 'business class at Ryanair prices' as it slashes £1,000 off its flights from London to New York"   (Mailonline 4-2-15)
 
 "French firm starts 'budget business' class flights from London to New York" (London Evening Standard 4-2-15)

The previously failed experiences of "Eos, Silverjet, and Maxjet" makes one think that the concept was wrong. However, this begs the question. Those airlines tried to survive, unsuccessfully, during the biggest economic downturn in 80 years.

On the other hand British Airways, firstly, founded "Open Skies" and then took over "L´Avion" to fly from Paris Orly to New York. This has proved an moderate success. It changed its name unnecessarily  and then floundered to find the product it wants to present - which is still the case.

Obviously, the founders of "L´Avion" were bought out with the condition of not setting up any sort of competition for a certain period. That period will have finished since now, of the top six executives in La Compagnie four have previously worked in L ´Avion and/or Open Skies

Now we have the founders of the original idea, "L´Avion" setting up "La Compagnie". The new company starts flying Paris (CDG) to New York in July 2014. However, such is the confidence by them, and in them by their backers that it now proposes to fly London (Luton) to New York from late April.The frequency will be three times weekly, rising to six times weekly in June and eventually daily by the end of the year.

"Open Skies" still operates from Paris Orly to New York (JFK and Newark) and has not developed since then despite markets existing in Brussels, Amsterdam, Geneva and maybe even in Nice(without thinking about other countries or languages).
It flies B757-200s in two different configurations: a) 114 seats  with 20 Biz Bed(business class seats), 28 Prem Plus (premium economy), and 66 Eco (economy seats), while the second option b) offers 112 seats with 20 Biz Bed, 20 Biz Seat and 72 Eco seats.




To be fair to BA, it has had to accept that its all business flights from London City to New York are not part of the same subsidiary, that operates "Open Skies". This was due to union oposition. As a result, however, both "Open Skies" and the operation from London City operate separately.  This second option was originally operated from London City from 2012 by British Airways (BA) Limited under the brand name Club World London City. However, from 2015 The Club World London City services are being returned to being operated directly by British Airways PLC.


The aircraft leaving London City cannot take on all the fuel necessary to make the transatlantic leap all in one go so provides a stopover on the outward flight at Shannon. This has given them the chance for the passengers to pass througn US Border Controls in Ireland so saving that time on arrival - no small benefit. They, therefore, arrive as domestic passengers and so save a lot of time and avoid the hassle which could be a couple of hours otherwise.The problem of loading weight for the return flight does not exist so the flight is direct New York JFK to London City.
The aircraft used is an  A318 in a 32 seat all business class configuration.



However, the choice of airport for London by La Compagnie makes for thinking. Considering that Heathrow is out of the question (flight slot availability and cost), and Gatwick (the same), then we are left with Stansted and Luton. Stansted might well be the more attractive site due to the supposed higher purchasing power of the potential passengers in the region, but one has to admit that it is stuck out on a limb (near Cambridge - only good if that is your destination). Luton, on the other hand, is well connected by road and rail to London, the Midlands and the North, so the immediate area for captive passengers is not so important. The airport itself might be considered second rate ( it is mostly used for holiday {bucket and spade} flights) but that would be irrelevant if the services provided by the airline on the ground were up to scratch.

However, the airport experience can depend on the airline if it so wishes. The pre-takeoff and post-landing experience are paramount.  A good lounge to relax in, a quick passage into the departure lounge and attention to all sorts of detail can make the experience worthwhile despite Luton not being focused on business passengers.

The ultimate question is if "La Compagnie"has learned the lessons of previous experiences and can apply them  -  I would think them capable of doing so.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The number of other airlines flying all business, or specially configured aircraft with a lower density of seating than most normal flights, is small.
What this blogger has found  is the following  -  at least  in /into Europe

Qatar Airways flies (to Europe) Doha - Heathrow  daily with an A319 in a 40 seat all business class configuration. A second A319 becomes available from 17-2-2015. It flies other routes and offers charter and contract hiring

(c) Lars Steffens

 Privat Air is based in Geneva and  does charter and contract flying. At present it is flying for...
SAS from Stavanger(Norway)  to Houston(Texas)  6 times weekly using a B737 in a 44 seat all business class configuration.
Lufthansa from Frankfurt to Dammam (Saudi Arabia) 3 times weekly and,
on a triangular route from Frankfurt to Pune(India) then to Bucharest and back to Frankfurt 4 times weekly. On both routes a BBJ2 (which is a modified Boeing 737) 
in a configuration of 32 business seats and 60 economy seats. 
ECAir (Equatorial Congo Airlines)based in Brazzaville(the Republic of the Congo).Here Privat Air has operated as the national airline of the country providing domestic and regional routes. Two intercontinental routes were offered from Brazzaville to Paris (4/6 times weekly) and Dubai (3 times weekly) using a B757-200 with 16 business seats and 132 economy seats. Thus it was not strictly an all business airline.


From what we have found there seems to be a very limited "ALL EXCLUSIVE BUSINESS SERVICE" on flights to/from Europe.  The European airlines seem to be concentrating their efforts on the regular long-haul services to the Americas and Asia/Africa - meaning regular flights with good services onboard for the  well-to-do while providing connectivity for the masses from point to point. This is a philosophy whereby the "economy" passengers pay for the basics of the flight while the "business" and "first" classes provide the cream - the profits. 

How this sort of service will develop in the future nobody knows. It is up to "La Compagnie" to show us what can be done. If it fails, that is is the end of all exclusive business flights. If it succeeds then the possibilities are endless. Let us wait and see.

Heathrow closure: 1/2 - it should not happen.

Is it not shocking that nobody tells us the real plans about what is going to happen to Heathrow airport in the next 50 years?

I have to admit that the plans are not clear. If you read institutional and non-institutional websites, transport blogs, transport forums etc. you still come to two conclusions.
One: nobody knows what they are doing but still go along with their plans come what may.
Two: there is a hidden plan to expand Heathrow come what may orchestrated by government (or big interested parties) so that the politically unspeakable becomes reality.

Short-termism is the rule of the day. When any sort of expansion of airport capacity in the South East of England is mentioned, be it Heathrow, Gatwick or an Estuary airport, or whatever, then the politicians get nervous. Why? Votes.

If runways/airports could be built in three- five years (a la China)  then the politicians would have what it takes to put the necessary infrastructure into place. As it is at present they do not have the guts - meaning both the government and the legislators (election cycles being up to 5 years means that no politician wants to put his job/constituency on the line). It is so wishy-washy of politicians (whatever their colour) to negate development when that means re-election. The word "NO" does not solve any problems but only puts them off to another occasion (obviously when it would not affect the individual concerned) - how cowardly.

Both the Conservatives and Labour have switched from supporting a third runway at Heathrow to being opposed to it. At least the Liberal Democrats (though not offering any practicable solutions) have been consistent in opposing a third runway. That was their price for forming a coalition with the Conservatives so as to be able to form a workable government

The party political conference season has just finished. Each and everyone was saying what the faithful wanted to hear and so imprisoned themselves into straightjackets with policies which have no future.

The governing coalition partners now have this to say in their transport policies.

"The Liberal Democrats believe that the aviation industry shouldn’t get special treatment and must cut emissions just like the rest of the country. Air pollution is already terrible around Heathrow airport and expansion will only make matters worse.
We will reverse Labour plans to expand Heathrow Airport and oppose Boris Johnson's proposals for a new airport in the Thames Estuary. Unlike the Conservatives we oppose all airport expansion serving London and the South East and so would block expansion at Stansted and Gatwick as well."

"The Conservative Party states as its policy.....

......The Conservatives opposed the building of a third runway at Heathrow. This commitment was met in the Coalition agreement. Our position on a third runway at Heathrow has not changed.

Planned actions

• We will pass the Civil Aviation Bill into law. This will deliver much-needed reforms to our aviation regulation system.

• We will press ahead with the consultation process on our draft aviation policy framework.

• The independent commission into aviation capacity will publish an interim report in 2013, and its final report in 2015 on options to maintain our hub status. Any decision will be taken after the next general election."

The Labour party actually says nothing on its website. The only two mentions are those stated below (and even so you have to look hard for them) of which only the first has anything to do with air transport (though nothing relevant to what this article is about).

http://www.campaignengineroom.org.uk/flyaway
http://www.campaignengineroom.org.uk/getagripboris

On 14th June 2012 the Labour Party published "a Policy Review document on Empowering Communities to Improve Transport." which is the only document of any weight to see the light of day this year. While it is long on generalities it has nothing of note about specifics.


It should be noted that with the Cabinet reshuffle in September 2012 the new Secretary of State for Transport, the Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin MP, replaced the former occupant, the Rt Hon Justine Greening MP, who is an opponent of any airport expansion. As is stated in the Conservative policy, he has set up an independent commission ...."tasked with identifying and recommending to Government options for maintaining this country’s status as an international hub for aviation."  It will present an interim report before the end of 2013 while the final report must be presented by the summer of 2015. As has been pointed out on every political forum as well as the DfT itself, this date is conveniently after when the next General Election must take place. That way the coalition should hold together. However, when the content of the interim report is known it could break up the coalition prematurely. This could well mean the election is brought forward to late winter or early spring 2014. We shall have to wait and see but it does illustrate how politics is dominated by vote seeking and not necessarily the national good.

Meanwhile the rest get on with doing things and trying to find solutions to the problems.

Another document, which has just been published (October 2012), is a report by
the Laboratory for Aviation and the Environment at MIT in collaboration with the Energy Efficient Cities Initiative at Cambridge University   
called "Air quality impacts of UK airport capacity expansion".

The most important point to note in this 5 page summary is that the number of deaths attributed to airport workings (not just aircraft) UKwide are 110(at Heathrow 50) annually.  This number is expected to increase(for a variety of reasons but without airports expansion) in 2030 to 250 in the UK (of which 110 will be attributed to Heathrow). With a third runway at Heathrow this figure is expected to grow from 110 to 150 annually. However, if a new hub were built in the Thames Estuary (with Heathrow being closed) the early deaths attributable to the (new) hub airport would be 50 annually.

The report goes on to make statements about the effects of air pollution which we are unable to see from the information written in the summary. As the summary stands I would question some statements made. To do that in any fair way we would have to read the full report as published in the UK-based scientific journal Atmospheric Environment. Despite obviously not having read anything other than the summary, many commentators have seen the document as the definitive "nail-in-the-coffin" for any expansion at Heathrow. However, things are not so clear.

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, presented his Transport Strategy in June 2010. 
It states (point 5.22.5 page 242) in the section Reducing CO₂ emissions from aviation
"Government has a target to reduce aviation CO_{2  emissions to below 2005 levels by 2050."}

This is significant and explains why so many documents are being produced concerning pollution. It is the Mayor´s legal obligation to ensure the reduction of the pollution levels.

At the instigation of the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, the Institute of Occupational Medicine published a report in June 2010 called "Report on estimation of mortality impacts of particulate air pollution in London". Here it looked at all the issues of air pollution (not just aircraft) and estimated that 4267 premature deaths are caused by air pollution in Greater London annually(the figures therein mentioned refer to 2008).

This, however, is only one document in a series published by the Mayor´s office to protect human health. The EU has set ‘limit values’ for PM10 and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). PM10s are emitted mainly by cars, factories and domestic heating systems. In the Mayor´s Transport Strategy (previously cited) it mentions(page 104) that "since 1990 CO2 emissions from ground-based transport in London have remained largely constant" at about 22% of all air pollution. Of this fraction 14% is attributed to "ground-based aviation" (including landings and take-offs to 1000 meters) as seen in the graph on page 104. It should be pointed out that of that 22% fraction, 72% is attributed to road transport (cars, taxis, bus coaches, lorries and vans), and the other 14% to rail. The air pollution attributable to  ground-based aviation(up to 1000 meters) thus comes to 3.1% of the total.

The studies have not stopped and do not stop as these questions of air pollutants (particles and noise) are important and ways have to be found to remedy them. Such is the case that the London Assembly Health and Environment Committee is having hearings into "curbing airplane noise and emissions" (from 16th October 2012).

Not only government but also other institutions or agencies produce reports.
  
Stanford Engineering  "Do airplanes have to be so loud?"
Professor Lele says:  "They don´t. In fact, if you were to compare a jet engine today with one from 40 years ago, you´d find that it is about 100 times quieter for the same engine power." 

This is an interesting article which explains that not only engines but also airframes produce noise - something which is remediable.

Another source, The Register (quoting Science magazine) on 18th June 2009 published a report announcing the results of tests made by US engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney. It claimed its new engine "the PW1000G offers a 15 per cent saving on fuel, correspondingly less CO₂, and a 50 per cent cut in NO_x emissions." These are significant figures. The first "planes will come into service from 2013."
  
Thus we arrive at the basic question to be asked.

Are we to be limited in development of active resources because of the problems of today without looking at the developments of tomorrow? 
  
The engine manufacturers and the airframe constructors are already planning the next generation of aircraft after A380, B747-8, B787 and A350. Airbus already has plans for aircraft with steeper descents to the runways and steeper climbs from takeoff. Engines are about consumption(for the layman: miles per gallon), efficiency of use(mpg and toxic fumes produced) and noise(efficiency of the engine). It cannot now be disputed that there have been substantial improvements in such areas since the introduction of the B707, the VC10, the B747(first generation) the Trident, the BAC111, the Caravelle, the DC8 etc. etc. The noise pollution over Richmond and Twickenham now has no comparison to the same when these aircraft were first introduced. 45 years ago the noise was even unbearable while now it is a mild irritant at most. Obviously the closer to the airport the greater the irritant - that has been, is and  will still be a point of discussion for all time wherever an airport is situated. If it is not the aircraft then it is the traffic going to/from the airport, or the airport itself, and if you are really at a loss for complaint then the passengers themselves. 

What has not been said so far is that not all airplanes should necessarily be jets. When they are propeller driven then they make far less noise and produce far fewer fumes than jets. Their noise/fume footprint outside the airport boundary is practically non-existant. If any third runway at Heathrow were built it would provide the necessary accessibility to destinations in the British Isles of which many would gain access by propeller driven aircraft.

Consider that the opponents of airport expansion today are basing their criticisms on the negative aspects of air travel. They conveniently forget the improvements in engine efficiency and reduction in noise since the initial explosion in jet air travel. Are there not going to be similar improvements in the next 50 years (as have been in the previous 50)? How can they  reject even aircraft which will not bother them? Are they not, therefore, being Luddites in rejecting any development? 

                                         ------------------------------------------------------------------

The next blog explains how Heathrow will not be closed.

Consider also the blog published 23rd February 2012 "Heathrow´s 3rd runway - how to focus"

Hasn´t Northolt shot its bolt?

Yet again we return to the question of more runway capacity at Heathrow. When the government coalition was formed a curt "no" was the only answer to the question of runway expansion at the London airports of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.

However, we are still waiting for the government policy paper on airport strategy which was originally due out in March 2012, but postponed to early summer and even now we do not have a publication date. This has led to all sorts of speculation, including a government U-turn on airport expansion. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, has insisted, though, that there will be no third runway (R3) at Heathrow. This in its turn has provoked all sorts of speculation and ideas have been floated (by whom??) about alternatives while keeping within the letter of the agreement keeping the lid on airport expansion. 

It appears that by using the assets already in place then a much needed  increase in runway capacity can be achieved. This is where Northolt comes into the equation. At present it is an RAF base in the northwest of London. Rumours have been spread that the RAF is going to close it so it will become available for other uses. Unfortunately, despite delving into all sorts of files, websites, news sources and even the Ministry of Defence itself, absolutely nothing has been found about any possible closure of Northolt as an RAF base.That in itself should be enough to quash any rumours. However, we know very well that governments can change political positions from one week to the next, and even occasionally make quick radical decisions. So let us work on the assumption that the closure of Northolt, as an RAF base, is possible.

Particular Data: At present this base is used mostly for Royal, governmental and other VIP and Defence personnel transport with various HS125s and BAe 146s among other aircraft. It also houses RAF training and Air Cadet units as well as some Army and Royal Navy units. Recently it had based there some Typhoon fast jets taking part in exercises to protect the Olympic Games. At first glance then it seems that this base at Ruislip near Central London has very real uses for the RAF which they would be reluctant to give up.

The two runways are aligned north west - south east (1.4 kms.long) and south west - north east (1.6 kms. long). This latter one cannot be extended to the SW as it runs into the A40 bordering the airfield, nor to the NE more than about 200 meters as it runs into housing and the National Rail and London Underground lines. This latter runway is 07/25. The other NW-SE runway is closed and not in use. It could, however, be reopened and extended to about 2.1 kms. across a green field. This is indicated in the photo of the map hereshown.                                                                             

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

This is a satellite view of the RAF base at Northolt, indicating the two runways with the SE-NW one extended.

The distance between Heathrow and Northolt is 9.2kms. as the crow flies, so by road it is more but all depends on the route taken and to which terminal one is going.

As you can see there is a problem with runway alignment. This is not so great a problem when the only aircraft flying into/out of the base are small jets and propeller driven aircraft. However, It is certainly a problem for air traffic control with any aircraft of a larger size - these need larger turning circles as well as longer runways. That means a conflict arises which is potentially dangerous.

PublicTransport routes: There is just one bus route which passes the airfield (down West End Rd.) which is the E7 from Ruislip to Ealing Broadway. The next nearest, 114 Ruislip-Mill Hill Broadway, is on the other side of South Ruislip station (along Victoria Road).The nearest station is South Ruislip which is both LUL (Central line West Ruislip branch) and National Rail with Chiltern Railways (Marylebone - High Wycombe) services.None of these goes near Heathrow and so involve at least one change to get there.

Roads: Probably the simplest way to communicate to Heathrow would be to take the A40, which directly bypasses Northolt airfield, westwards to where the M40 begins and then turn south on to the M25 (slots permitting!!). T5 is easily accessible, T4 is relatively easily accessible from the M25, while the central area terminals 2 and 3 need a more roundabout route. 

To gain easy access to the central area from Northolt it would probably mean taking the A4180 then the A312 southwards to the M4 or later the A4 (Bath Road) turning westwards in either case to join the Tunnel Entrance Road to the Heathrow Central Area.

All these options of course mean extra traffic on already excessively crowded roads (hence the slots comment). It means cars, taxis and connecting buses all of which are noisy, polluting and congestion causing. Far from being an attractive option.

It has been suggested that a fast tube link be constructed between Northolt and Heathrow. If it were a tube then presumably it would go underground so as not to disturb the housing (and their residents) in the area. This a very expensive option just to connect a minor airport with small aircraft using it to the main hub airport. Would it be cost effective? On the other hand, if the connection were overground then you would have to choose a route and subsequently decide which housing and businesses would be affected. Also very costly but both economically and politically.

What has not been mentioned are the start and finishing points of such a connection, and even how many stops it should have. Would it start at Northolt terminal or further north - e.g. South Ruislip station to link with the LUL and Chiltern Lines - or even elsewhere? Where would the line end - via T5 and on to Staines, or via T4 and on to Feltham? In either case one terminal would lose out thus reducing the benefit of the connection.

Autonomy: Northolt cannot be looked at as anything other than another minor airport in London. Its operation would, by necessity, be independent from Heathrow. To provide all the auxiliary services that aircraft and passengers need you would have to duplicate them at Northolt - a ridiculous expense. Cleaning, minor maintenance, fueling, food and drink, trolley extras (duty free goods etc.), baggage handling and so on all mean added expense. If they were provided by Heathrow then how much would the roads get clogged up by the extra traffic? For aircraft to be maintained they would have to fly into Heathrow eating up precious slots. It is unimaginable how much the resulting chaos would be, especially in adverse weather conditions.

Who would fly there?: No airline would go to Northolt voluntarily. Even if the government decided to force airlines (and this means BA and Aer Lingus) that fly the British Isles routes then it would be most detrimental to those airlines. If other European airlines were involved then the government would have a diplomatic incident on its hands. Whether one or the other you cannot discriminate in such cases - the resulting case in the European Court brought against the government by the airlines  would be won easily by them and would need a total climbdown by the government, meaning the death knell of Northolt as an airport. This point in itself destroys the case for Northolt.

Runway Three: A third runway (R3) at Heathrow between the M4 and the A4(Bath Road), where originally proposed, would suffer none of the problems encountered by Northolt.
1-It would be built parallel to the present runways, and used in "mixed-mode" so would not cause problems to air traffic control.
2-It could be built as a full length runway to be available IN EMERGENCY/EXCEPTIONAL CASES ONLY while its normal use would be for small and medium jets together with propeller driven aircraft.
3-A new terminal 6 (T6) would be built to serve R3 but the operation would be so designed that airlines/aircraft would always (or at worst almost always) fly into/out of R3 and T6. That way there would be no need at all for planes to cross the other runways, except in exceptional circumstances. 
4-Some housing would have to be demolished but a lot of the housing, hotels, car parks and sundries could be maintained.
5-Taxiways(3 or at most 4) would need to be built to connect to the main airfield and the northern runway.
6-Road works would be needed for the A4 to pass under the taxiways and there might be some other minor works.

7-No tube or rail lines need be built as the existing Heathrow Express/Crossrail line already passes under or near where T6 will be constructed meaning only a new station would be necessary.
8-All auxiliary/maintenance services are on site or on hand.
9-The links to the other terminals would exist from T6 with the opening of the new HE/Crossrail station.
10-Therefore, the case for airlines to object for a transfer of some routes to T6 would not exist. 
11-No (or at worst very little) extra road traffic would be needed - quite the opposite of the case at Northolt where the increase would be substantial.
12-The progressive limitations on noise and engine pollution would be as stated on previous blogs and extended to other airports eventually. 

Northolt is not an option to serve Heathrow at all. R3 and T6 are the best options to relieve some of the congestion at Heathrow. The real solution is to use the assets this country has and let the other airports expand. You cannot deny necessary infrastructure today with arguments when you can insist on their solution for tomorrow.
A  2 or 3 hub solution certainly has merits. Does not the Greater New York area work with LaGuardia, Newark and JFK as major airports?
The mega hub airport idea is just a fad. So many passengers complain at the sizes of Paris CDG and Frankfurt. Let us not try to go down the same road. We have to build on our advantages  and not follow everybody else like sheep. We have five airports (and that is only serving the London area) and must capitalise on those assets. It is so easy to spend other people´s money on big white elephants - no thank you. 


This blogger has written about the subject of a new runway at Heathrow airport several times already. The last one was 23 February 2012 under the title...

"Heathrow´s 3rd runway - how to focus"

Long-haul rail terminals under Heathrow and Gatwick.

This idea has been around for some time but as usual it means different things to different people.


A-The origins:

It firstly came from the engineering consulting firm  ARUP in September 2008. Basically the idea was to build a new interchange station directly north of Heathrow T5 on the GWML at Iver(Buckingham Advertiser 7th July 2010). This would connect with local, regional and long distance services on the GWML from where passengers would be fed to the various terminals by an unstated means. On the plan you can see that T4 was not connected while some fanciful T6 satellite terminals(right across the A4 Bath Rd.) were proposed for the third runway which would be connected too. All this was to satisfy present infrastructure demands but it went further than that. A high speed line (HS) was to be built into central London terminating at Euston. From there a connection was planned to the HS1 line to eventually merge somewhere near or before Stratford. From Iver the idea was to direct the HS line northwards to Birmingham and onwards, probably to merge with HS2 or even replace it. No details of the planned routes were given. That idea has not progressed but other less ambitious ones have appeared.

B-The Present Situation

T5 was constructed with six rail platforms,two for the LUT Piccadilly line, two for the Heathrow Express(HE) services to Paddington, and two more for, at that time, new undefined services. Airtrack was a proposal by BAA to build on the success of HE by offering new services from those two platforms to Reading, Guildford and Waterloo plus an extension of HE services from T5 to Staines. These services did not come to fruition. They can be seen in ARUP´s pdf. file.
The Airtrack proposals proved to be non-starters and were dropped in autumn 2011.
There are no extra rail platforms either in the the Central area(T2 &T3) nor at T4.

C-Initial New Proposals

The idea of a connection to Reading remained and appeared in a proposal by  the UK Transport Secretary,  Philip Hammond, to build a connection from Reading along the GWML and into T5 - a shuttle service to be run 4 times per hour. This very limited idea was to replace the RailAir coaches to Reading station with approximately the same frequency.

Our thoughts on this proposal were expounded on this blog

http://trans-trax.blogspot.com.es/2011/10/reading-heathrow-rail-connection.html

on 6th October 2011

This was followed up two days later by a proposal to connect Heathrow with Gatwick  to try to make them operate as one airport named Heathwick (ughh!!)

We also looked at this proposal on 11th October 2011

http://trans-trax.blogspot.com.es/2011/10/heathrow-gatwick-rail-link.html

We do not need to reproduce all the arguments we used to reject the proposals - many well-known business personalities have voiced their disapproval.The two proposals were floated and nothing of substance has been heard of them since then.That makes one think that the government was only sounding out opinion - and did not like the reaction.

The way they were presented and the little substance in their content made them totally rejectable. However, if these ideas were not taken separately but were part of a larger plan then they could be looked at differently. We would like to emphasise that we would like people to look at the complete picture.

D-The Real Reasons

The government wants to build a spur from HS2 into Heathrow. The idea is to offer an alternative to domestic air travel so as to reduce traffic through the airport. They ignore that an assessment commissioned by the previous Labour government, and repeated by the Coalition government came up with the same conclusion. The demand satisfied by a direct HS spur does not justify its construction because of the low numbers concerned - about 2000 pax. per day. Not all potential destinations are connected by rail or even would not benefit by an HS spur. There are many destinations where air links are essential (Northern Scotland, Ireland and the other British Isles) while rail links are impossible.

Even with HS2 completed up to Glasgow and Edinburgh there will still be a demand for substantial air travel to those cities, without mentioning Aberdeen and Inverness.(the HS trains have not killed the air traffic between Paris and Lyon, Madrid and Seville or Barcelona).Despite ignoring these realities the government wishes to imagine people travelling everywhere in Great Britain by train. The ministers should try it some time and not just for the photo call.

There are manifest practical difficulties to run direct HS trains from Heathrow to HS1 and on to mainland Europe.The proposals being mooted involve inordinate difficulty, disruption and cost into London and through to Euston. It will be like forcing more content through a bottleneck - the weak link is from Camden Town to St. Pancras - already designated a major freight route (plain madness). Has the government even thought out the practical difficulties of trying to offer direct rail connections from outside London to European cities? Not at all, even though many doubts and objections have been aired on forums, blogs and interested pressure group websites.

The real problem is that the government has painted itself into a corner and does not know how to get out. It has come to the conclusion that its initial prohibition of new runway building at 3 London airports is a non-starter. Whatever the long term solution, the problem of undercapacity is immediate and needs solving now. That is why the government´s long awaited policy document on aviation has been postponed from March to summer 2012.

E-Thinking outside the box;

Building the Reading-Heathrow and  Heathrow-Gatwick links separately is extreme stodgy thinking with only limited benefits and acceptance. Combining the two ideas into one link from Reading to Gatwick opens up all sorts of possibilities, not least providing a one-stop link from  South Wales, Bristol, and the South West to the two principal UK airports. Also from Reading connections to Birmingham and further north can be provided to link to the two airports.
Extending the line from Gatwick 73kms., over mostly open ground, to Ashford then we have a direct link to HS1 and through the Channel Tunnel to mainland Europe.
This achieves bypassing the bottleneck which is London. We avoid the prohibitively expensive and disruptive construction of a fast line through west London and relieve the clogged transport system of the capital.

The opening of such a line from Reading to Ashford gives us the chance to substitute the RailAir coaches plying between Reading and Heathrow, and the National Express coaches (up to 6 times per hour) between Heathrow and Gatwick. These would be with a greater frequency and greater reliability. However, they need not stop there. There is scope for trains to stop on route at such places as Feltham, Guildford, Woking while on to Ashford at Tonbridge. Thus the service becomes really regional offering connectivity to the airports and at other interconnecting points to other parts of Great Britain.

What make the rail ideas attractive are the possibilities of offering mainline European services  which do not transit London. The present Eurostar train services go to Paris and Brussels from London St.Pancras. The German railway company DB plans to run services also from London but onwards from Brussels to (i)Amsterdam, and to (ii)Cologne and Frankfurt. Imagine if such services were offered from Heathrow and Gatwick. Part of what the government wants - a lowering of demand at those airports - with the reduction of flights to Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Cologne, and Frankfurt, would be achieved. The effect would most probably be more than any desired effect on domestic flights. This would certainly be a way of damping down demand on air, runway and terminal space.

In these cases passenger services tend to be the only ones mentioned, however,  freight is of extreme importance. The possibilities are tremendous and so need a separate blog, which will be the next when we deal with what we call the SHSL (Southern High Speed Line).

F-The Heathrow Interchanges Stations;

To get back to the idea of interchange stations at Heathrow (and at Gatwick) then we have to imagine one  built specially for purpose, most certainly connected to the present rail/tube stations. When we think of local or regional services then we think of convenience. This would mean one station at each terminal - T5, T2/3 &T4. With a long distance station we tend to think of one for a whole complex - so probably situated at Heathrow Central.

However, we have to separate the ideas of domestic and European services because of the question of immigration controls.

For the trains to originate at Heathrow there is a whole complicated problem of turnback and parking facilities, all underground or well away from the airport. It is much better to start these services at an existing rail hub which can absorb such space demanded, and the ancillary services needed even on the surface.

Thus, if the trains do not originate at Heathrow but at Reading then the platforms, at the airports, would be through platforms not terminating ones.The trains could stop at each terminal providing the convenience for the passenger. Unfortunately, I believe, that the present track layouts mean that such a through line with its corresponding platforms would have to be completely new (undergound obviously).

To make the use of the rail station(s) popular accessibility is the word. The stations will be underground at the airports with three platforms provided for the regional and national services - one "up", one "down"and one for overflow/accidents etc. The same would be needed, but separate, for services to Europe. This means a total of six platforms.

The rail tunnels would be like the present Channel tunnel with two main separate tunnels with a service tunnel between. This would allow the flexibility and security demanded of an enclosed environment. Trains running on the surface might find two tracks to be sufficient.

The point of having six platforms in the terminals is to separate the international from the domestic passengers. To do this by limiting access to all the platforms according to the type of train which is leaving(or arriving) is complicated and time consuming. It is simpler and much more efficient to have separate platforms. That way domestic passengers can gain access to the 3 domestic platforms in a constant, unimpeded way facilitating their onward transportation.

International passengers, on the other hand, can gain access to their 3 platforms in a more relaxed manner having passed through Border Controls. If there is just one Central Area international set of platforms then passengers would have to go through Border Controls to land-side and then again through the controls to air-side to their flights. This is unnecessary duplication of Border Controls for what are transit passengers( the queues and time wasted would be horrendous) This would be done having changed to the relevant terminal, which might well be an inconvenient connection away. However, if there were international platforms at each terminal (T4, T2/3 &T5) then the transfer to flights could be directly on to the flights, or from the flights (with controls at the destination). Why should there be a difference in treatment between air and rail passengers? The train would be considered just a connecting "flight" with luggage collected at the destination. (The Swiss do this really well.)  Heathrow has already passed the 70 million pax.per annum mark and is well on the way to 100 million pax.per annum.(Like it or not this is a realistic figure to be looking at in the next ten years - before any other capacity is brought online) Is it not necessary to look at constructive ways to facilitate movements?

The trains would then have stops both for domestic services(long-distance and regional) and international ones at each of the three terminals, T5, T2/3 and T4.   Gatwick, on the other hand would only need one underground station. That way it could fit under the present surface one and be able to cross it west-eastwards without interference (including the differing electrical traction systems).

G-Conclusion:

Long-haul rail services from Reading through Heathrow and Gatwick to mainland Europe.
This way they start at Reading and provide connections - north, west and south west - to other services which means that London does not need to be clogged with transit passengers. Border controls are carried out at Reading and the airport terminals direct to the European destinations.
The result would be a marked decrease in short haul air traffic to mainland Europe while increasing the airport accessibility for towns and cities in northern France, the Benelux countries and north west Germany (including all the Ruhr). This would provide a greater demand for medium and long-haul routes from Heathrow and Gatwick, and also on domestic/Irish routes.

The new rail infrastructure provides capacity for domestic regional routes between Reading and Ashford for any stopping places on route. Access is improved for passengers and workers to the airports leading to less road traffic. These connections would reduce the need to travel through the bottleneck of London.

Long-haul domestic rail routes could eventually be offered from Gatwick (or even Ashford) to many places south-west, west and north, and maybe even to Scotland, all without the need to pass through Central London reducing the demands on the capital´s overstretched transport infrastructure.

Does it offer any other possibilities? Yes it does, particularly with freight but that will be dealt with in the next blog.

Heathrow Chapuzas!!

Maybe you do not understand this Spanish word but at least one person who will is the Rt.Hon.Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Glegg.  This generally is used to refer to the actions taken, or to be taken, to fix a problem which is not a good solid everlasting solution but more of a "quick fix", a"half way house", a "temporary solution(which turns out to be permanent, or semi-permanent)". One thing that is implicit is that it is derogatory without doubt. No other word can express with such disdain work which is carried out in ways which are shoddy, badly thought out, and badly executed.

The infrastructures committed by the British governments over the last fifty years can, in many cases, be called "chapuzas". More specifically, those transport connections in and into Heathrow airport in search of solutions to problems have not solved the problems only in part but also badly. The ideas presently being floated for more solutions at Heathrow are being looked at piecemeal with the high likelihood of them being patches which do not give us good long lasting solutions. In other words we are being offered "chapuzas" yet again by these civil servants and politicians (these "chapuzeros"). 

Let us firstly look at the development of Heathrow.

(c) George Hayter

This was the layout of the airport when it was taken over from the RAF in 1946. The three runway triangular plan was typical of RAF aerodromes of the time.

(c) George Hayter

The report by the London Airport Advisory Layout Panel for development at Heathrow was presented in January 1947. As can be seen from the diagram up to 10 runways were envisaged using not only the existing area of the aerodrome but also an extended area to the north of the Bath Road (A4) which was to be diverted as shown.

This configuration provided three sets of parallel runways so minimise the effects of crosswinds.

After the extensions south of the A4 to be completed by 1949, the third stage north of the A4 was to be completed by 1953. The reason this stage was placed last was that it meant the knocking down of the village of Sipson. This was considered inappropriate in the immediate post war years due to the severe shortage of housing. Need it be said that Sipson is still there.

This was an opportunity lost since the development round the airport in 1953 was much less than at present. That third parallel east-west runway (Nº 8) would have approximately occupied the site of the 21st century proposed third Heathrow runway thus providing the airport(in 1953) with the expansion and flexibility it seeks now sixty years later. As a result of complying with that proposal other infrastructure planning would certainly have taken a different course. That blundering failure is an illustration of short-termism and political expediency - no vision.The idea was finally abandoned in December 1952.

As George Hayter says in his book, "...the recommendations of the Layout Panel contained few ideas which had not been well aired. 
Nevertheless, the Panel chose the most bold and exciting of all the possibilities." 
Suffice it to say that, apart from the above mentioned, they envisaged the central area, where the terminal(s) were to be situated, to be reached by a four lane tunnel under the north runway. This was built in 1950-53 and considered revolutionary at the time.

(c) George Hayter

This was the layout of the airport when it came into use in April 1955. It was later opened officially by the Queen on 16th December 1955.
Take note of the extended maintenance area to the east. This is where BA maintenance facilities are now situated. The Pan Am maintenance facilities are now occupied by Terminal 4.
Also the development along the A4, just north of runway 1, is very marked in the nine years from 1946.

In the central area was the Europa building which handled domestic, European and North African flights.The overseas terminal was still on the A4 and not in the Central Area. Long-haul flights had to wait until November 1961(BOAC) and March 1962(other carriers) to move to the Oceanic building in the central area.

By the mid sixties traffic had grown so that a new terminal was deemed necessary. This was opened in 1968 for all British, Irish and Channel Isles flights of BEA and Aer Lingus. The Official opening by the Queen was in April 1969 and it was named Terminal 1. She also renamed the Europa Terminal 2 and the Oceanic Terminal 3. Heathrow at this stage was handling 14 million passengers annually.

It was at this time that better transport links to central London were considered essential.

A lot of the information(the italics are quotations) in this blog is gleaned from George Hayter´s book "Heathrow - the story of the world´s greatest international airport." (Pan Books 1989)


1- Feltham to central area 

"Since the 1940s, British Rail have had plans to link Heathrow to their national network. The favoured scheme always used to be one connecting the airport to the Feltham line, which passes to the south of the airport and runs into the central London termini of Waterloo and Victoria."
It just goes to show that the planners then did not have the materials (post-war rationing) nor the money (bankruptcy of the country because of the war) but they certainly had vision.

The idea of a rail link into Heathrow came up again at the end of the 1960s. The idea mooted was a connection from Feltham Station direct to the central area, as illustrated.

There were two main problems to be considered........
(i) Lack of train paths: From Feltham station trains could go through either Twickenham or through Hounslow to where the tracks met at Barnes then to Clapham Junction and on to Waterloo or Victoria. The Victoria solution was preferred but rejected as it implied major crossover works at Clapham Junction so Waterloo was accepted as the terminus. However, these trains ran along the Windsor and Reading lines which had heavy traffic and lack of platform availability in Waterloo. Also the service level would have to be reduced during the morning and evening rush periods into/out of Waterloo. This would occur just when the same rush periods demanded nor less but more service to/from Heathrow.
(ii)Level crossings:Including one at Feltham itself, there were six level crossings along the Twickenham route while five along the Hounslow route. This would have meant closing the level crossings to road traffic for longer periods still, increasing road congestion. The cost of building the necessary bridges or tunnels for the road traffic was seen as excessive and unacceptable. Thus an opportunity was lost to solve a problem which exists even today and will have to be confronted at some time in the future.

These two reasons were paramount in causing the cancellation of the Airtrack project in 2011.

Thus the door was opened for London Transport to extend the Piccadilly line from Hounslow West to the central area.


2-Piccadilly line extension to central area

Work began in April 1971 on construction of the Piccadilly Line extension from Hounslow West to Heathrow Central (5.6 kms.).
Hatton Cross (for the maintenance area in the east of the airport) opened 19th July 1975.
The Heathrow Central extension was finally opened 16th December 1977. That year 24 million passengers passed through the airport.
The solution was considered acceptable at the time but all the interested bodies realised that other solutions had to be looked at.

3-Piccadilly line loop to T4

(c) George Hay

By the early 1980s passenger figures passed 30 million so a new terminal was built at the south east of the airport. This was opened officially 1st April 1986 by the Prince and Princess of Wales but came into operation, in fact, 12th April.

The single line loop from Hatton Cross to Terminal 4 round to Heathrow Central was opened with only one platform in T4 and is unidirectional.
This so far has proved adequate but leaves the loop with no flexibility in case of accidents and breakdowns.

The expansion to the south east of the airfield was BAA´s second choice.Firstly, they wanted to expand eastwards but this would have meant closing runway 2 which was "considered vital for crosswinds and emergencies." 

The rebuilding of Terminal 2 now taking place (spring 2012) is occupying that same runway 2 together with the satellite Terminal 2B. This means that another runway is being taken out with no backup replacement.

"When London Transport extended the Piccadilly Line to serve Terminal 4, they built the loop line further west than it apparently needed to go. So far west, in fact, that it almost passes beneath the sewage works, making possible the later insertion of a tube station here to serve a fifth terminal."
George Hayter wrote those words in 1989, three years before BAA announced their proposal for T5 in May 1992. Unfortunately, George was proved wrong.........as a different extension was built from the central area to T5. This is another example of sloppy planning and maybe for one or various different reasons such as.......

(i) London Transport did not talk to the right people to know their long-term intentions and so ended up with a shorter loop than was subsequently needed.
(ii) BAA  apparently did not take into consideration London Transport´s loop so built the terminal station (and T5) further west than could have been done.
(iii) No remedial construction work was considered feasible in place of a simple extension from Heathrow Central. The result means that London Transport ends up with an excess of unnecessary railtrack while T4 and T5 are unconnected directly - and such is the inconvenient situation today.



4- Heathrow Express to central area and T4

(c) National Rail May 2001

Even with the Underground extension to T4 plans were afoot for a connection from T4 to the Great Western Main Line(GWML) approved in 1988. This non-stop rail service  from Paddington mainline station to Heathrow T4 was opened in its full extension 23rd June 1998. The capital cost of GBP190 million was covered 80% by BAA and 20% by British Rail. Thus Heathrow Express(HE) is both operated by BAA and owned by them from the  GWML to the airport. However, it is (now) maintained by Network Rail for BAA.




As can be seen on the Google Earth map HE comes round in a sweeping curve from the central area to T4 ending up facing northeast. It does not give us the line of the track to T5, however.

This makes one think that nobody has thought nor considered it worthwhile leaving the options open by any extension from T4 which might be useful or beneficial, such as an extension to Feltham. Now any such connection would need another sweeping "S" double curve to connect the service to the Windsor/Reading main line.

Heathrow Connect (HC)(a joint venture between BAA and First Great Western) started 12th June 2005, running originally from Paddington to T4. This is a stopping service from Paddington along the GWML and then ran, originally, into Heathrow Central and T4. Now it runs only to Heathrow Central. From there anybody who wants to travel to (or from) T4 has to connect to an HE shuttle service.

The problem seems to reside in  the connection at Airport Junction between the HE line and the GWML. The frequency of trains is restricted which is why HE has 4 trains per hour(tph) running into T5 while HC only offers 2tph. The original connection at Airport Junction, Stockley Flyover, has a complicated system of operation.The original flyover connected the HE line to the fast lines on the GWML. With the introduction of HC services these used the GWML slow lines. This meant a combination of reverse running over the flyover and crossing the fast lines in the other direction(this is a total line capacity reducing measure). Yet another example of lack of forward planning (and/or cost cutting).

It seems that this problem should be solved (at additional expense, of course) with the introduction of Crossrail services in 2019 which will take over the HC services. These will run from Heathrow, probably T4, to the central area, through to Paddington then central London and out east at 4tph(double the HC frequency).

The Underground Piccadilly line services stop at T4 and wait up to 8 minutes before returning through the central area to central London. The frequency is approximately every ten minutes (i.e.6tph).

5-Heathrow Express to T5

6-Piccadilly line to T5

A new terminal for its own use was pushed by BA. The site chosen was the sewage farm between the north and south runways to the west of the airport. From conception to opening 19 years were needed, including the longest public enquiry on record at 525 days. Construction began in September 2002 and that year 63.3 million passengers used the airport.

(c) Transport for London March 2009

T5 was opened by the Queen on 14th March but officially came into operation 27th March 2008. Over 67 million passengers went through the airport that year. On the opening of T5 the HE trains started running into that station.

The original Piccadilly line loop round from T4 to the supposed T5 site and on to the central area was not sufficient, as has already been mentioned. As shown on the diagram the area was greater than that envisaged on the loop diagram.That meant that an extension of the original Underground connection from Hounslow West to Heathrow Central was now extended to T5. The service pattern set up was that some 6tph tube trains entered Heathrow at Hatton Cross and went south to rest at T4, then continued on the return journey through the central area back to central London. Another 6tph entered from Hatton Cross into the central area and on to T5. These then returned the way they had come.

(c) National Rail & Transport for London 2012

The map on the left shows the
system as it is today. LUT´s Piccadilly line runs to T4 and T5. HE is shown as running to T5 and HC is shown, erroneously, as running to T4, in both cases from Paddington. It should be emphasised that from Heathrow Terminals 1,2,3 to T4 a free HE shuttle is now taken.
The station in the central area has been known as Heathrow Terminals 1,2,3 since April 1986. However, it still retains that name despite Terminal 2 being knocked down in 2009. When T2 is reopened in 2014  T1 will be knocked down. Therefore, there is some confusion about what the name of the station will be. It is speculated that it will be renamed Heathrow Central. Probably, it is just as well that the name is not changed until the new T2 is reopened to avoid confusion.

7-Airtrack to Staines
When T5 was constructed it was provided with platforms for the Piccadilly line trains, the HE trains and two more, unspecified use. For once somebody had thought ahead.


An idea called Airtrack was promoted by BAA using these two platforms in the new T5 building. Three services were to be offered; Reading, Guildford and Waterloo. Each was to have a frequency of 2tph offpeak and 1tph peak periods.

The problems involved have already been looked at in point 1 with the Feltham connection. Basically, these were (i) lack of train paths (thus the reduction in peak periods) and (ii) level crossings (extending the services to Reading and Guildford meant additional level crossing closures during the operation of the trains  meaning additional traffic problems.

BAA also wanted to extend some HE trains from T5 to Staines (solely to increase traffic on its services). This would have complicated things more with an extra turnback platform to be built at Staines. As it turned out, a combination of the difficult problems encountered together with the government´s drastic cut in investments and spending, convinced BAA to drop the scheme in April 2011.

This blogger looked at the question 30th June 2010 in an article titled "Airtrack - is it worthwhile?"

8-Reading to Heathrow Rail Connection
The Transport Secretary, Philip Hammond  came up with this idea in  September 2011. It was floated as a shuttle between T5 and Reading to connect to the GWML and services to South Wales, Bristol and the west country. After the initial news nothing else has been heard.

This blogger looked at the proposal under the title "Reading - Heathrow Rail Connection" 6th October 2011, fairly soon after it came out.

Without repeating the arguments extensively, the idea of connecting the two free platforms at T5 with the GWML is a good one. However, if it stops at that then it is short thinking. The bigger picture should be looked at in which the Reading - T5 connection is only a part. If that is not done then we would fall into the trap, yet again, of thinking small and developing projects which are costly to rectify in the long run.

This particular project should be looked at with and linked to the Heathrow-Gatwick proposal.

9-Heathrow to Gatwick
This is a proposal to link(with the horrible name of "Heathwick") the two airports so that the two Gatwick terminals would function as extra terminals for Heathrow. Obviously, this had not been thought through. The idea of linking the two airports is welcome but not in the terms as mentioned.  


The broader picture has to be looked at again which this blogger did on 11th October 2011, "Heathrow - Gatwick Rail Link".

Here the proponents of the connection are thinking of, yet again, using the two free platforms at T5 to provide this link. Maybe at present they have the capacity to satisfy both(8 & 9) connections but if the services are successful then they will be proven lacking. That would mean, yet again, having to rectify short-term thinking with new constructions.

The two projects joined together (Reading - LHR and LHR - Gatwick) offer greater possibilities. If then the line were extended to Ashford(Kent) we then have a connection to the Chunnel. That then would open up the possibilities of connections to Europe(Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Cologne and even Frankfurt).
All this would provide traffic from the two airports (at least, and maybe even Luton), and from Reading (and all points north, west and south west from there). Direct trains are a possibility to mainland Europe bypassing the bottleneck that is London. It would mean that no spur from HS2 is necessary, alleviating the traffic through the capital. The possibilities of direct trains to mainland Europe from Wales, the South West and Birmingham are opened up while greater and better regional services are also a possibility.

These ideas have to thought through on a broader scale, and then planned and executed carefully.


10-mainline station Heathrow
On 16th may 2008 the infrastructure engineering group ARUP presented a plan to improve rail services between Heathrow and the rest of the country. It is also mentioned in a  Wikipedia article, Heathrow Hub railway station. 

This was to be situated north of the airport on the GWML connected by a shuttle service to T5. Here again they were thinking of using the free platforms at T5. However, this idea of a 12 platform station fell flat on its face because it yet again introduced a time wasting change for connections to the GWML and HS2. 

Duplicity of effort,  waste of resources, eating up of the Green Belt; there were many reasons to criticise this project. However, again the germ of the idea was not bad - if done at Heathrow. The basic objections were that it used the supposedly free platforms at T5, it did not take into consideration any other project proposed, and it was imprisoned in the concepts already put forward by the same engineering group to solve problems (HS2 etc.). 

Maybe the present infrastructure in Heathrow is non-adaptable to greater ideas or concepts. That is a question of looking at the present infrastructure with the plans to see if it can be adapted; also the traffic predictions have to be realistic and reflect the experience gained over the last fifty years. then we can consider if the present infrastructure can be adapted and used or if a new "heavy" rail station should be built to connect Heathrow to Gatwick and mainline Europe, and other parts of the country as well.

This we will look at in the next blog. 

What has to be looked at, firstly, is what the country wants to do with Heathrow. If it is closed then what substitutes it? Thus a strategic plan for aviation would have to be drawn up and implemented quickly. If the decision is taken to keep Heathrow for, at least, the next forty to fifty years then total plans have to be laid down and implemented as soon as possible. 

Then the mistakes of the past have to be taken into consideration, learned from, and avoided. Complete solutions to plans for national, regional and local transport needs have to be tackled. This would mean that Heathrow, or any other airport for that matter, would not be looked at in isolation but as part of a whole. If plans prove to be reasonable and feasible then let them go ahead  and not fall victim to narrowly interested parties or Treasury diktats. The greater good for the long-term should be paramount. That is the only way to avoid the mistakes of the past.


Note: Passenger figures reached a high of 68,068,304 in 2007. In the period 2008-2010 figures fell in the economic downturn. Now in 2011 the figures have recovered their upward climb and surpassed the previous high at 69,433,565.