Connect with us

Business

Airlines angry at planned rise in Heathrow passenger charges

Published

on


BBC View from the air shows four BA planes on the tarmac plus various Heathrow terminal buildings and parked carsBBC

The airport wants to demolish the building previously used as Terminal 1

Airlines have reacted angrily to Heathrow Airport’s plans to raise passenger charges as part of its investment plan to handle an extra 10m passengers per year by 2031.

Heathrow wants to set passenger charges at an average of £33.26 between 2027-2031, compared with what it claims is an average of £28.46 between 2022-2026, although this figure is rejected by airlines.

A Virgin Atlantic spokesperson said: “Heathrow is already the most expensive airport in the world and this proposal demonstrates Heathrow’s inability to invest capital wisely and efficiently.”

Heathrow chief executive Thomas Woldbye said: “Our customers want us to improve our international rankings further, as do we.”

He added: “To compete with global hubs, we must invest.”

Heathrow is Europe’s busiest airport, with more than 83.9m passengers travelling through its terminals in 2024. It just experienced its busiest May on record.

On Friday, Heathrow Airport Limited (HAL)’s 2027-2031 £10bn business proposal was submitted to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which determines the cap on per-passenger landing charges that airlines must pay to Heathrow.

Airlines pass on the cost of these to passengers through fares.

‘Excessive’

The plan would create new space within existing terminals equivalent to 10 football pitches, enabling new lounges, restaurants and shops to be built.

It would also result in faster security and baggage handling, according to the airport.

The airport is seeking to demolish the building previously used as Terminal 1, extend Terminal 2, and build a new southern access road tunnel.

Once complete, the project would enable Heathrow to increase its passenger capacity by 12%, equivalent to 10 million more travellers annually.

PA Media Picture of smoke billowing out a the North Hyde substation in March. Two fire engines are on the adjacent road. PA Media

Heathrow closed for a day in March when a power substation caught fire

A Virgin Atlantic spokesperson said: “We totally agree that Heathrow needs to do better and dramatically improve the customer experience if is to become the airport that UK consumers deserve.

“However, only Heathrow with its monopoly power as the UK’s only hub airport, would think that this £10bn investment plan represents value for money and that’s before any third runway expansion costs are factored into the equation.

“Heathrow says that its shareholders will contribute £2bn equity but it is ultimately consumers and airlines that pay the bill, with Heathrow’s proposal to increase passenger charges by 28% in 2027 compared to today.

“Heathrow is already the most expensive airport in the world and this proposal demonstrates Heathrow’s inability to invest capital wisely and efficiently.

“Therefore, we continue to call on the CAA to undertake an urgent fundamental review of Heathrow’s economic regulatory model, which is simply not fit for purpose.”

IAG, which owns British Airways, Iberia, Vueling, Aer Lingus, said HAL’s plan “requires significant revision”.

A spokesperson said: “The proposed 25% increase in charges is excessive, particularly given that Heathrow is already the most expensive airport in the world and this plan does not increase capacity.

“The suggested £10bn investment would be paid for by passengers and airlines, raising serious concerns about affordability and value for money.”

Heathrow chief executive Thomas Woldbye said: “We’re making good progress on our strategy to become an extraordinary airport – having become Europe’s most punctual major airport so far this year.”



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Business

AI Coding Tools Could Decrease Productivity, Study Suggests

Published

on


AI code editors have quickly become a mainstay of software development, employed by tech giants such as Amazon, Microsoft, and Google.

In an interesting twist, a new study suggests that AI tools might actually be slowing experienced developers down.

Experienced developers using AI coding tools took 19% longer to complete issues than those not using generative AI assistance, according to a new study from Model Evaluation & Threat Research (METR).

Even after completing the tasks, participants couldn’t accurately gauge their own productivity, the study said: The average AI-assisted developers still thought their productivity had gained by 20%.

How the study was set up

METR’s study recruited 16 developers with large, open-source repositories that they had worked on for years. The developers were randomly assigned into two groups: Those allowed to use AI coding assistance and those who weren’t.

The AI-assisted coders could choose which vibe-coding tool they used. Most chose Cursor with Claude 3.5/3.7 Sonnet. Business Insider reached out to Cursor for comment.

Developers without AI spent over 10% more time actively coding, the study said. The AI-assisted coders spent over 20% more time reviewing AI outputs, prompting AI, waiting on AI, or being idle.


A graph from METR's study is pictured.

While participants without AI use spent more time actively coding, AI-assisted participants spent more time prompting and waiting for AI, reviewing its output, and idling.

METR



A ‘really surprising’ result — but it’s important to remember how fast AI tools are progressing

METR researcher Nate Rush told BI he uses an AI code editor every day. While he didn’t make a formal prediction about the study’s results, Rush said he jotted down positive productivity figures he expected the study to reach. He remains surprised by the negative end result — and cautions against taking it out of context.

“Much of what we see is the specificity of our setting,” Rush said, explaining that developers without the participants’ 5-10 years of expertise would likely see different results. “But the fact that we found any slowdown at all was really surprising.”

Steve Newman, serial entrepreneur and cofounder of Google Docs, described the findings in a Substack post as “too bad to be true,” but after more careful analysis of the study and its methodology, he found the study credible.

“This study doesn’t expose AI coding tools as a fraud, but it does remind us that they have important limitations (for now, at least),” Newman wrote.

The METR researchers said they found evidence for multiple contributors to the productivity slowdown. Over-optimism was one likely factor: Before completing the tasks, developers predicted AI would decrease implementation time by 24%.

For skilled developers, it may still be quicker to do what you know well. The METR study found that AI-assisted participants slowed down on the issues they were more familiar with. They also reported that their level of experience made it more difficult for AI to help them.

AI also may not be reliable enough yet to produce clean and accurate code. AI-assisted developers in the study accepted less than 44% of the generated code, and spent 9% of their time cleaning AI outputs.

Ruben Bloom, one of the study’s developers, posted a reaction thread on X. Coding assistants have developed considerably since he participated in February.

“I think if the result is valid at this point in time, that’s one thing, I think if people are citing in another 3 months’ time, they’ll be making a mistake,” Bloom wrote.

METR’s Rush acknowledges that the 19% slowdown is a “point-in-time measurement” and that he’d like to study the figure over time. Rush stands by the study’s takeaway that AI productivity gains may be more individualized than expected.

“A number of developers told me this really interesting anecdote, which is, ‘Knowing this information, I feel this desire to use AI more judiciously,'” Rush said. “On an individual level, these developers know their actual productivity impact. They can make more informed decisions.”





Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Why Chuck Robbins and Jeetu Patel believe Cisco’s AI reinvention is working

Published

on


Just days before Nvidia stormed past $4 trillion market cap, setting off another frenzied rally around artificial intelligence (AI)-linked stocks, a quieter, less meme-able tech giant, Cisco Systems, was building a case for relevance, led by its top brass, Chuck Robbins and Jeetu Patel, in the heart of Mumbai. Long seen as a legacy stalwart of the dotcom era, Cisco today trades at a market cap of $272 billion, a far cry from its 2000 peak of $500 billion. But for its CEO Chuck Robbins and president and chief product officer Jeetu Patel, the story has only begun to play out now.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Martin Lewis' trick for haggling with a call centre

Published

on



Contract ending or ended? Try this if you’re renewing your broadband/TV, mobile, car/home insurance or breakdown cover.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending