It looks like United has decided that its seasonal flight from Denver to London will be seasonal no more . . . in a bad way. The flight won’t be coming back this summer, and instead the airline will use that Heathrow slot for a fourth daily trip to Washington/Dulles. I know a lot of people are shaking their heads wondering why United would choose to add yet another flight to Washington instead of sticking it out in Denver, but there are some good reasons, some more obvious than others.

The Impact of Demand
When it comes to domestic flying, travelers care primarily about price and schedule. If an airline has frequent flights in a market, it’s going to punch above its weight, so to speak. But when you start talking about long haul flying, the equation changes. Most people become less time sensitive and the nonstop isn’t quite as important.

For a 1 hour flight, you want to see flights going hourly all day long. For a five hour flight, you’d like to see flights going at least 4 or 5 times a day. And for a 10 hour flight, well, the schedule doesn’t matter nearly as much. When you’re traveling that far and changing so many time zones, you just expect to have a long travel day.

If we look at the Denver-London flight, it originally left Denver at 655p and arrived London at 1050a. Now, if you want to fly United, you’ll have to leave at 355p, go through Washington and arrive at 1010a. Sure, it causes you to lose some time but it’s really only about 2.5 hours. In the scheme of things, that doesn’t matter that much.

So there are viable connecting options on United and that’s likely to keep most of the United fliers happy enough that they won’t leave. The only better option is the British Airways nonstop, but if you’re tied to Mileage Plus and Star Alliance, you probably won’t be defecting. American miles don’t do much for you if you live in Denver.

On top of that, many of the people who would connect through Denver can either go through San Francisco or LA in the west along with Chicago and Washington in the east. Sure, some of the smaller mountain towns won’t have one stop service anymore, but there’s not huge demand for that.

So on the demand side, while travelers would like to have a nonstop, United isn’t going to lose a ton by not having it. Could it gain in the way of higher fares? Sure, that’s possible, but that also doesn’t mean it’s the best use of that airplane.

The Trade-off
The issue is figuring out if there’s a better way to use that airplane and that slot. For United, the opportunity to put another flight in Washington for a total of 4 daily makes sense. There is a lot more demand for flights to London from Washington than there is from Denver, but that’s not all. The shorter flight time from the East Coast to London means people are somewhat more time sensitive. For example, there is a morning flight that goes to London as well as three at different times in the evening, and that makes a difference when the flight time is only 6 hours and you have 2 fewer time zones to cross.

United also faces stiffer competition in Washington. Besides BA’s three daily flights there, Virgin Atlantic has one as well. While BA and Virgin both have flights leaving at 640p, United can now bracket its current 6p flight with one at 7p. It makes for a very compelling schedule and it allows United to spread thing out for better connecting opportunities as well.

Best and Highest Use
Another thing to consider here is aircraft. United was using a 777 on the flight from Denver, but it can use a 767 from Washington. That frees the 777 to fly longer, more profitable missions. Then again, maybe United will pull it out of service to refit the seats to the new standard. Either way, the 767 probably makes for a better match with demand in Washington and freeing up a 777 is a big deal. They don’t just grow on trees.

In the end, my guess is that Denver-London did ok in the summer but not “ok” enough. United doesn’t risk losing a lot of demand because of the connecting opportunities, so it might as well move the fleet around to where it can be more profitable. My guess is that the 787 will make Denver-London look a lot more compelling when it finally gets delivered. But until then, there are better ways to use the airplanes in the fleet. You may not like it in Denver, but it does make a lot of sense.

[Original photos via Wikimedia Commons users Janusz J. and AgnosticPreachersKid/CC-BY-SA-3.0]

Good morning. Assuming we’re on time, I should be making my way toward the California coast as this goes out. I’ll be back home soon, and I’m looking forward to a nice and relaxing weekend. But first, let’s talk UK.

I realize this may not be fascinating to all of you (or, um, potentially most of you), but RDC Aviation puts out a great monthly report on UK air traffic data. The last report was for January – October 2009, and I found myself just fascinated by a lot of what’s in there. Here are some random fun facts in no particular order.

• About 100 million passengers went through Heathrow, Gatwick, or Stansted through October. That’s more than half of the entire country’s air traffic.
• A full 20 percent of the traffic at Gatwick is charter. That’s the largest charter airport in the UK.
• Quick – what’s the largest destination country from the UK? Nope, not the US. It’s Spain with more than 27 million passengers. The US sees a paltry 14 million yet it is number one from London. There are nearly 16 million people going from the rest of the UK to Spain and that makes the difference. (Should I make my pasty white Brits comment again?)
• Outside of the British Isles, Amsterdam is the number 1 destination. I’m surprised to see that Paris is #8 from London. Considering that most of that traffic is now on Eurostar, that shows just how big that market is.
• Only one route within the UK carries over 1 million passengers – Heathrow to Edinburgh. If you add in the other London airports, you get to 2.5 million.
• The largest domestic UK route not touching London? That’d be Belfast to Liverpool with 336,000 (another 123,000 if you include Belfast City airport).
• #1 international? New York, of course. Heathrow to JFK has over 2 million people. Adding in Newark, you get close to three.
• The largest US market that doesn’t touch London? How about those sunseekers in Manchester – more than 300,000 headed to Orlando.
• The #1 charter route from the UK is from London to Dalaman. Manchester to Dalaman is second. Dalaman, by the way, is in Turkey.
• Heathrow is the largest cargo airport, but #2 is actually East Midlands. In last place, we have Wick, which had one single tonne for the first 10 months of 2009.

See, I told you that was fun. Wait, hello? You guys still there? Definitely come back tomorrow for the Air NZ product launch coverage.

We’ve heard the beginning of this story a million times. Airport wants to expand, people protest, and the process gets bogged down for years and years. On the surface, that’s what has happened with Heathrow’s bid to build a third runway to alleviate congestion and to grow, but underneath, it’s a different kind of situation. And that’s why the recent approval to build the third runway has been met with wide-ranging protests.

Usually, the only people protesting airport expansion are those who live around the airport. They don’t like the noise and the traffic, even though the airport in most cases was there long before they arrived. And while we have seen that with Heathrow, the bigger protest has actually centered around the environmental impact on a broad scale.

It makes absolute sense to add a third runway at Heathrow. The airport is bursting at the seams, and there really aren’t any better options for more capacity, despite London Mayor Boris Johnson’s ill-fated support for a (zany) brand new airport in the middle of the Thames estuary. But many people in the UK are now saying that there shouldn’t be expansion because airplanes pollute too much. They don’t want more plane flights in London at all, despite the benefits that are brought to the population.

Look at some of these headlines . . . “Concrete and calamity at Heathrow” or “Third Heathrow Runway a Massive Step Backwards.” But it gets even crazier than that. “MP suspended from Commons after picking up mace in Heathrow protest” shows how people are really losing their minds over this. Many are saying that the government has let them down in the fight against climate change. I just have to shake my head.

People act like there are no efforts in the world of aviation to reduce emissions. That’s absurd. Engine manufacturers are jumping over each other to reduce emissions and increase fuel efficiency as we speak. And as those emissions come down, there’s no reason that we should restrict further air travel growth because of the tremendous economic benefits it provides.

It’s not like the government is completely ignoring climate change here. With the new runway, they have committed to building an intermodal hub for high speed train travel at the airport, something that may very well kill many short haul flights and encourage people to travel greener. The government will also restrict use of the new Heathrow slots that the new runway will open only to the greenest aircraft flying. On top of that, the government only approved half the new number of flights that were originally proposed.

The new runway won’t be built until 2015 at the earliest, and that means there’s plenty of time for people to predict gloom and doom. Some think the requirements to use only the greenest aircraft will fall under pressure, but I would be surprised. This is the right thing to do, without question, but if anything it will put even more pressure on Heathrow to focus on green initiatives.

There were a couple of things that happened in the last week that got me thinking that I needed to write an update on how things were going for British Airways over at London/Heathrow’s Terminal 5. First, my walkthrough of the new Indy airport had me thinking about other recent big terminal openings. And second, I found out that the Telegraph over in the UK named me one of the world’s top 25 travel blogs, and specifically called out my writings on Terminal 5. Did I mention I love the British?

Anyway, I’m sure many of you haven’t been keeping track, but I have been keeping up my chart of Heathrow terminal changes on the site.

Nearly all BA flights have moved to Terminal 5 now including a big move of long haul flights in the last couple of weeks. There are still a handful of moves coming at the end of January, but the bulk of it is done. And now that the changes are nearly complete, it sounds like it’s operating quite well too.

I’ve spoken to three different people in the last couple weeks who have flown through Heathrow’s Terminal 5 and they’ve all had nothing but good things to say about it. It sounds like after the initial problems, they’ve smoothed out quite nicely.

I’m hoping to get out there to take a look sometime next year. For now, has anyone else had good or bad experiences to share?

A friend of mine who frequently flies out of London/Heathrow wrote to me recently and wondered why my coverage had been so light on the new Terminal 5. I guess I was just waiting to see when things calmed down. I mean, everyone has been talking about how horrible the problems have been since it opened, and I didn’t think I had much to add. Just about every facility has teething problems, even huge ones like we’ve seen in this case.

So, he gave me some good fodder for a post. Instead of focusing on the opening problems, let’s look at the experience as it’s supposed to be. The verdict? My friend is not so happy.

1. Limited-to-no premium check-in – My friend always flies business class for his frequent work trips, and he noticed that while there was a “tiny first class check in area,” there was “no dedicated first/gold card security lane” and “no business class check in at all.”
   
   Hmm, that didn’t seem right to me, but sure enough, that was BA’s plan all along. I spoke with John Lampl, spokesman for BA here in the US, about these issues, and he confirmed that “one of the concepts is . . . no dedicated queues for premium travelers, because what we expect them to do is check in online . . . get to the airport in time for their flight, go through the bag drop [if necessary] and security and go up to the lounge.”
   
   How strange. John says this comes from a great deal of research, but I know there are premium travelers who prefer the personal touch and want a human being to take care of things for them. Unfortunately now, if you want help from a real person, you have to wait in line with everyone else. The goal is, of course, to have no lines at all, but that’s not always realistic.




2. Security validation – Apparently BA has set up a fancy pants system that makes you scan your boarding pass when you go through security. According to John, if you have a valid boarding pass and you’re there more than 35 minutes prior to your flight’s departure time, then you shouldn’t have any trouble. That didn’t work out so well for my friend. He says:
   
   “I checked in online and printed [my] boarding pass but had to go to [the] check in desk to have my [ticket] ‘validated’ or activated in the system. This was after stopping by the first check in area and having been told to proceed to security.”
   
   Hmm, this doesn’t sound very good either. I’m sure there are opening day glitches, but it’s not far-fetched for a boarding pass to get corrupted or a system to malfunction. Sending someone back to the general check-in area every time there’s a problem is not only aggravating, but it’s poor customer service.




3. Lounge locations – As a gold card holder on BA, he’s entitled access to certain lounges. Apparently, it’s not very convenient in his eyes. He says:
   
   “There is a door into the lounge area right by security but it is for pax booked in first only (a gold card won’t cut it…) so to access the lounge you have to walk in a loop, go downstairs, then back upstairs.”
   
   That seems rather strange to me, but John says there is some hope here. “We had elevator problems in the first few days. He may have been forced to go downstairs and then upstairs.” So hopefully this one isn’t a problem.




4. Security bins – “Everything has to go in a security bin – even your bags. Someone tried to get way too clever and design an automatic bin return. Needless to say that does not work to well. And my carry-on got stuck in the stupid bin.”
   
   Yeah, that’s definitely frustrating. Sometimes, the most simple things are the best way to go. Designing an automatic return system may sound good in theory, but it could end up being more trouble than it’s worth. Hopefully this one is just part of those “opening day jitters.”




5. Lounge quality – Apparently, once my friend found the lounge, it was fine, but that’s about it.
   
   “Lounge is nice – food is nothing special at all. Virgin still kicks their ass on this front – in fact I think BA will lose a lot of business to Virgin b/c the setup here for a premium pax is stupid. . . . Regular lounges have same and more food than first. I don’t think it qualifies as a coffee house if you have automatic machines that make marginal cappuccinos. Champagne bars with only 2 champagnes would not last long. Oh – why can they do decent fresh oj on plane but [the] lounge has concentrate?”
   
   Something tells me this could be an issue of overpromising with the brand. What do I mean? If they’re going to call it a “champagne bar,” which they do, then it probably should have more than 2 types of champagne. If it’s just a lounge, then 2 champagnes are fine.
   
   The orange juice issue is the one that is most likely to get action. When I told that to John, he said, “I totally agree with him. We will take that comment and that will be sent to the people catering the lounges.”




6. Arrivals lounge – Once my friend returned, he sent me a follow up note about the arrivals experience. Though many of those gripes were probably just “teething problem,” I think his notes on the arrivals lounge were interesting.
   
   “Classic BA. Indifferent staff, no warm greetings and same crap food. You really think they could make something better on the ground than in an airplane. I especially like the “self service” luggage check. You present your bags, the counter clerk open the little gate and says “Yep. Take them back there”. Staffing levels clearly low. No one at the spa area or shower check in.”
   
   Sounds adequate but nothing more, in his eyes.

So that was about it. My friend summed it up after his trip by saying “Compared to [Virgin Atlantic], I would say BA completely lost the plot and missed a huge opportunity to create a great space for premium pax. Watch their load factors drop.” That’s certainly an unfortunate opinion and not one that will please BA. I know they were trying to do something amazing here.

So, for him it was clearly a disappointing experience, but one man does not represent everyone. Who else has an opinion of the Terminal 5 experience? Anyone else have a different view on things?