(27 Jul 2016, 3:29 pm)8222 wrote https://www.londoncityairport.com/news/readpressrelease/major-boost-for-uk-and-london-economy-as-london-city-airport-receives-planning-permission-for-expansion-

City Airport expansion given the go-ahead.

I have to say, I love flying to/from LCY - especially on BA Cityflyer.

(27 Jul 2016, 3:36 pm)Michael wrote Never flown from any other Airport other than Newcastle.

Will it be a good move?


Let's hope we can get the funding for the Metro expansion then....

(27 Jul 2016, 3:36 pm)Michael wrote Never flown from any other Airport other than Newcastle.

Will it be a good move?


Let's hope we can get the funding for the Metro expansion then....

(27 Jul 2016, 4:01 pm)citaro5284 wrote So you left and arrived at Newcastle than Michael 

You must have flown from another airport........

(10 Aug 2016, 1:29 pm)Michael wrote Not sure where to put this and i don't want to start a new thread so i'll put it here:


United Airlines axe Newcastle to New York route

http://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2016-08-10/united-airlines-axe-newcastle-to-new-york-route/

(10 Aug 2016, 1:41 pm)South Tyne Lad wrote Don't know how they can say the route wasn't profitable, Considering when my Dad went to have look at the flights in April it was fully booked for 9 days....
All because the pound has dropped.

(25 Oct 2016, 1:49 pm)Michael wrote Third runway at Heathrow airport approved by ministers


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-37730173

(25 Oct 2016, 7:43 pm)Andreos1 wrote I can't help feeling that this is a missed opportunity for the regional airports - who have supported the expansion, via posters in departures or quotes in the media - http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/g00/news/north-east-news/heathrows-third-runway-given-go-12074647.

Yes, regional slots will be protected at Heathrow and will maybe grow, IF capacity at the likes of Newcastle is available - but if the whole idea of the expansion is to ensure that Heathrow, London and the UK doesn't miss out, why build it at Heathrow?
Just as en example, ministers are bleating on constantly about the Northern Powerhouse and the regional investment funds (or whatever their fancy name is these days), yet the likes of Newcastle, Manchester and Leeds/Bradford are stuck with BA feeding in to Heathrow.

Rather than have customers and staff travel to a regional airport, fly and transfer to Heathrow using a new runway, before heading off to China (or wherever else), firms will continue to invest in the south. A third runway at Heathrow doesn't make investing at Rainton Meadows any more attractive at all.
If Newcastle was allowed to expand, then surely their would be more economic benefits? Whether that is investment in infrasture or jobs and quicker, direct 'access to markets around the globe'

(25 Oct 2016, 8:53 pm)Tamesider wrote I totally agree with your sentiments, but the issues (and therefore the standpoint) differ between Airports. You would know better than me whether the capacity is available at Newcastle, and what the logistical and environmental implications are. In itself, Newcastle would surely need more direct flights, as it is a long way from any meaningful alternative. Leeds-Bradford (and Liverpool) are different, and I suspect want it both ways; They want better (rail) access to Manchester Airport, but also more connecting flights to Heathrow. Manchester is unique, and probably stands to lose the most, noting revelations last week that the figurehead of the "Northern Powerhouse" (Osborne) is now amongst those saying that not only should Heathrow get its 3rd Runway, but consideration to a second runway at Gatwick should still be an option, combined with May replacing the "Northern Powerhouse" with the "Midlands Engine". Few people in the Manchester area believe HS2 will ever go beyond (say) Wolverhampton, and it has been noted for some time that Midlanders without direct flights from Birmingham often prefer the convenience of driving to Manchester than the "hassle" of getting to through Heathrow.
As you may know, Manchester has daily direct flights to something over a dozen North American cities, as well as 3x A380s a day to Dubai; 700 seats a day to Abu Dhabi, and regular direct flights to Singapore, Hong Kong, Beijing, Pakistan, Istanbul and dozens of European destinations. Manchester is very much the Munich or Milan of England AND is more centrally located than either of those non-capital cities seen as economically vital to their respective nations. 
In terms of capacity, Manchester is probably the reverse of Heathrow, in that our second Runway is underused, partly as a result of the Recession last decade, but flights have very high load factors. Although my total number of flights from MAN is probably less than 100 over the last 40 years or so, I don't recall more than 2 or 3 that have been less than 95% full. Heathrow clearly has high "demand" for Runway use, but given the market conditions (it is STILL cheaper to fly via Heathrow than direct from Manchester), corporate contracts with businesses forcing staff to fly through London (presumably the contracts are with BA) and the number of TV, magazine and other businesses offering free/cheap flights/holidays from Heathrow or "a choice of London Airports", I suspect load factors are still poor. I remember when T5 was being planned, the Environmental lobby said it wasn't needed because the equivalent of 6 empty 767s were flying the London - New York route alone, every day. That equated to load factors of 65-70% at the time, whilst it was the norm for volunteers to be "bumped" on every weekend flight between Manchester and the US, because of overloading. 
I am also surprised (and disappointed) by the Scot's reaction. They want devolution from England, but would still prefer to feed its biggest dragon than expand their own Central Belt Airports.

(25 Oct 2016, 9:30 pm)Andreos1 wrote Newcastle are stating they're happy with the third runway, as it guarantees the service between the two airports. Apparently BA were wanting to give up domestic slots to feed foreign demands.
I personally doubt that would have happened - without the spokes, the hub doesn't work.

Interesting! That might be why BA sounded surprisingly cold about it at one point, saying it wasn't worth the money. What Willie Walsh meant was it wasn't worth Londoners paying for something primarily benefitting er......... Londoners (maybe he should join the Rail passenger's lobby). I'd heard that part of the justification for a third Runway was to *increase* the proportion of domestic feeder flights

(28 Oct 2016, 2:29 pm)Andreos1 wrote The 3rd runway gives BA the opportunity to increase those internal feeder flights. That was where Durham Tees Valley was brought in to it. I think the likes of Newquay were also mentioned.

What BA were saying (and what I mentioned the other day), was that without the 3rd runway they stated would look at swapping internal slots for international ones.