undefined | Better HN

0 pointstraceroute661y ago0 comments

> Heathrow is a significant part of the UK economy

Is it, really ?

From Heathrow's own website[1], so we can expect figures on the "generous" side:

"Heathrow Airport is expected to contribute approximately £4.7bn to the UK economy "

This incident started somewhere around midnight and is currently estimated to be resolved by 15:00. So let's round that up to "one day".

£4.7bn divided by 365 is £12.8m

Compared to say, the UK financial services sector which contributed £208.2bn to the UK economy in 2023[2] where an equivalent day out would cost £570m .... Heathrow's paltry £12m is equivalent to a 30 minute outage in the financial sector.

Also, to put it further into perspective - Tesco, the UK's biggest supermarket operator - had revenues of £68bn last year...[3]

[1]https://www.heathrow.com/content/dam/heathrow/web/common/doc... [2]https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06... [3] https://companiesmarketcap.com/gbp/tesco/revenue/

0 comments

megamix1y ago

Does that count only the actual airport? It doesn't count the potential business travellers contributing to the economy in different ways. Like if half of the financial sector were due to arrive at Heathrow, where would that be in the analysis?

Just to downplay the importance of Heathrow through numbers is a bit absurd.

bee_rider1y ago

If half the financial sector is in the plane somehow, and they decide “oh, the airport has a power outage, better crash into the ocean instead,” that might make a major difference. More likely they will go land at a different airport or delay their travel, depending on there they are in the process.

It’s just delays, not destruction.

Ozarkian1y ago

You missed the parent's point, which is that a significant fraction of people flying to London because they have business to do in London, and the value of their time is not zero. If their time is wasted, that has a real cost in terms of lost productivity.

bee_rider1y ago

I don’t think I did miss their point. The loss is not the deletion of their productivity, it is the cost of shifting that productivity back by a day or so.

pjmorris1y ago

I've flown through Heathrow a dozen or so times, and have spent maybe $200 in various shops and restaurants. Outside the airport, I spent months working on projects, and both I and the projects involved much more than $200. An analysis that includes only direct spending misses the overall impact.

AnimalMuppet1y ago

All right, but if Heathrow was down for a day, what would you do? Cancel the trip, and never go at all? Or would you go a day later, or through a different airport, or fly to Manchester and take the train?

seabass-labrax1y ago

Even if the airline let you, why would you travel to Manchester? That's half a day and a £100 train fare away from London. There's still Gatwick, Stansted and Luton in 'London', plus Cardiff, Birmingham and Bristol as alternatives.

If money were no object even Amsterdam Schiphol or Brussels would make for a faster journey than Manchester!

AnimalMuppet1y ago

Hey, clueless American here. I confess I have no idea how far apart things are in the UK. "Closer than in the US" is all I've got.

2 more replies

leoedin1y ago

By what basis are Brussels or Amsterdam closer to London from Manchester? Manchester is a 2 hour train ride from London. Brussels is similar, but there’s at least an hour of mandatory security and waiting. Amsterdam is much further away.

marliechiller1y ago

Thats not really a fair comparison. Youve compared an entire industry to one entity within an industry. Id be interested to see what the numbers would be if you shutdown all commercial UK airports for a day. Still smaller I'd imagine, but at least comparable

traceroute66OP1y ago

> Thats not really a fair comparison.

If we're going to be pedantic about fair comparisons, then really you would need to, for example:

Remove airport duty-free sales figures since that has a negligible effect on the UK economy, but does pad up their bottom line.

Remove leisure passenger derived numbers. Because "passenger tourism contributes to the UK economy" type data are very much finger in the air subjective estimates prone to bias and massaging. For example, common scenario is relatives coming to stay. They stay at your house, you feed them at your house, their net contribution to the UK economy is effectively naff all apart from maybe a couple of museum and transport tickets.

monkey_monkey1y ago

Or they could compare it to an asteroid hitting the UK and wiping all all life within a 200 mile radius.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

megamix1y ago

Just to downplay the importance of Heathrow through numbers is a bit absurd.

bee_rider1y ago

It’s just delays, not destruction.

Ozarkian1y ago

bee_rider1y ago

I don’t think I did miss their point. The loss is not the deletion of their productivity, it is the cost of shifting that productivity back by a day or so.

pjmorris1y ago

AnimalMuppet1y ago

seabass-labrax1y ago

If money were no object even Amsterdam Schiphol or Brussels would make for a faster journey than Manchester!

AnimalMuppet1y ago

Hey, clueless American here. I confess I have no idea how far apart things are in the UK. "Closer than in the US" is all I've got.

2 more replies

leoedin1y ago

marliechiller1y ago

traceroute66OP1y ago

> Thats not really a fair comparison.

If we're going to be pedantic about fair comparisons, then really you would need to, for example:

Remove airport duty-free sales figures since that has a negligible effect on the UK economy, but does pad up their bottom line.

monkey_monkey1y ago

Or they could compare it to an asteroid hitting the UK and wiping all all life within a 200 mile radius.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse