Have VS thrown in the towel ?

We can't go here, we can't go there

A poor impression, appreciate similar to his previous rant, but the tone of this doesn't look good...

We can't go to south america, we can't go to Beijing B) Really !

Come on SRB, kick your team into some more proactive thinking v(

Even if a runway was decided its a decade off at least...

Has he given up and a likely sell-off

We can't go here, we can't go there

A poor impression, appreciate similar to his previous rant, but the tone of this doesn't look good...

We can't go to south america, we can't go to Beijing B) Really !

Come on SRB, kick your team into some more proactive thinking v(

Even if a runway was decided its a decade off at least...

Has he given up and a likely sell-off

I often think you can hear the collective groan coming from Crawley towers whenever he opens his mouth.

It's interesting how he says that the government should just 'put in a third runway' like its something that can be done over the weekend; even with expedited planning, it wouldn't be a viable
asset for at least 4 years.

If SRB is so desperate to make VS grow - and I agree it would be great if it did - then frankly, they ought to have made a better offer for BMI. It's no good complaining that BA will probably get its mitts on slots that will give it 54.2% of available at LHR when your own company elected to place a bid that was lamentable at best. I also still laugh at SRBs suggestion a while ago that BMI should be allowed to die off, which would release its slots back into the pool - the result of which would be that 14% would have to go to new airlines anyway.

I'm eternally grateful that BAA stays well out of the business of slot allocation - we have enough to do without trying to manage that particular bloodbath.

It strikes me that SRB still views VS as the up-and-coming underdog airline, when in reality it's a global brand as powerful as any other; gone are the days when it would be treated differently to the likes of BA or QF.

Its all politics and just "thrown out there" to add pressure to the up and comming review of airport capacity v(

It doesn't take long for even the slowest of journalists to find out from various sources that

Vancouver is starting 4 times a week

Mumbai is starting daily

Ghana has 2 flights a week added

and San Francisco has 3 flights a week added.

There is obviously capacity available to do this and probably more so why whinge about having no space to expand when you have just added 16 departures a week to your schedule ?|

David

I don't think he's talking about VS alone here, in defence, when he says "we" he is pretty much saying what Willie Walsh is also saying - the latter is known for recent speeches in a similar vein.

The issue is that competing airports for business such as AMS, FRA and CDG all have three, four or five runways and are not operating at capacity. Airlines based there can send smaller planes to new destinations, or larger ones less frequently, and make the numbers work. IAG and VS can't operate the same model because the airports are at capacity - to continue in business they have to operate the most lucrative routes and don't have either slots (and then the range of planes to use the slots) in a similar way.

Yes of course VS could spend £40m on a pair slots for one new destination ... or £400m on ten pairs, the going rate to expand in other places is a fraction of the cost. Our government refuses to acknowledge this, we must have one of the most restrictive and over regulated transport policies in the world, and it is holding things back - my colleagues in the US who visit India increasingly do so via FRA for example, skipping the opportunity to spend time and do business here on the way.

A third runway could be built in a fraction of the time it will take if a bunch of folk pulled their fingers out of the ears, mouths and butts. While I agree the whinging is boring, SRB's point is valid. Even former Tory cabinet ministers agree, as does a large swathe of business, and I should think other countries are laughing at us.

Yes SRB comes off as the cousin of Whiney Walsh, but he does have a valid point - I live under the flaming flight-paths at LHR and I have absolutely no problem with them building another runway, because it is so important to our economy.

I am sure it would cost less to compensate the people that would need uprooting and build the third runway than to go and build a new airport in the Thames Estuary where the whole land-transport and other infrastructure would need to be established from ground/marsh up. The amount of expense that this whole thing will incur if it goes ahead would bankrupt the UK in its present state (even if private, because it will definitely need Gov't bailouts at some point). Not to mention the fact that by the time the new airport would be up and running most of us will be geriatrics and a vast swathe of those who blocked the 3rd runway would be dining with the Wright brothers. If the environment was a real concern of theirs, they would make vegetarianism compulsory in the public sector!

Such shortsightedness... France, Holland & Germany seem to have won the war after all. With their airlines & gov't singing off the same aviation development plan hymn sheet, we have quite a dysmal future.

BTW is there some official way to register support for this 3rd Runway? I haven't been able to find anything... and I was elsewhere when the consultations were going on

BTW is there some official way to register support for this 3rd Runway? I haven't been able to find anything... and I was elsewhere when the consultations were going on

No because the Government have ruled out the 3rd Runway then it is not part of the consultation exercise. ditto extra runway at STN and the 2nd at LGW

I too belive that LHR needs a 3rd runway but on the proviso that there are only a small number of new slots added (and none to to to BA) so that the extra runway is used to improve take off and departure times and holding is reduced (and that would really be the 'green' thing to do'

Maybe the government figures that it's easier to stifle demand in the industry by continuing to increase taxes. There's always an assumption that we want to compete with France and Germany but maybe in this case it's a way of keeping the liberals happy with their green agenda.