The Newsroom

BBC Breakfast

(March 2009)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
AC
aconnell
I think they're moving for the sake of moving. Who cares where the programme is from; I'm more concerned about what is on the programme. Moving to Manchester, whilst it says alot, will obviously affect the range and quality of features on the show. There shouldn't be a pressure to move out of London if it adversely affects the quality of the show, which it no doubt will.
BB
BBC LDN
House posted:
Yes but add in hotels to meet the needs of high-profile actors, car journeys, other expenses and, quite possibly, fees and it's a little more than that.

Why the need for a hotel?

If someone catches the 06:30 BA flight from Heathrow they arrive at Manchester Airport at 07:30.

That gives them an hour to get out of the airport and be driven the 10 miles to MediaCity in time to appear on the programme for the 'fluffy bits' after 8:30.


What if the flight is delayed? What if flights are full when a guest needs to be flown in? It would be quite foolish to rely on such a narrow margin for error that relies on a channel that has limited availability - ie. only one or two flights - and where plans can come unstuck thanks to only a short delay to the flight. Delays on flights leaving Heathrow are commonplace - it's a busy airport that's operating almost at capacity - and even early in the morning, some delays can occur.

I used to fly back and forth from Manchester regularly a few years ago, and sometimes you had flights that were 45 minutes gate to gate, but sometimes there were flights - both at the earliest and latest ends of the day - that far exceeded the 1hr10min scheduled gate to gate time. They hold a flight for five minutes to wait for a late passenger, then the plane has to line up behind six other planes that have jumped ahead of it, and it takes off twenty minutes late. There's traffic at Manchester - many long-distance overnight flights arrive early in the morning at UK airports - and so you circle the airport for a little while before finally landing, and arriving at the gate 35 minutes behind schedule.

So now it's 0805 as the guest gets off the BA flight you mentioned, and they're on air at 0840. The guest has to run to the waiting car - if there's any baggage to wait for, they're screwed - and still get to Media City in time for some hair and make-up before they go on camera.

Granted, not all flights will be delayed in this manner, but the likelihood of delay out of Heathrow is huge, and the margin for error you described is simply too narrow to make this a reasonable or intelligent decision.

That's why the BBC would need to offer its guests accommodation; it's bad enough that guests will need to get to Manchester at all - they can't then put their guests in the position of having a stressful journey to the studio at the same time.

What's more, this comparison of train vs plane is ridiculous, at least in the terms in which it's being stated here by Stuart. Your argument of one hour each way presupposes that the guest is in the vicinity of Heathrow Airport. In fact, unless they've flown in very recently, and are staying at an airport hotel, they're more likely to be in one of the much better and more varied central London hotels. I would imagine that the majority of high profile international guests would be in the latter category, as it's probable that they would not have made a special trip to the UK just to be on a breakfast show watched by a couple of million people - they'll have other engagements, and a lot of them will be in London itself, not at the airport.

If you're in central London, whether you go by car/taxi, coach, tube, Heathrow Express or overground+bus, it's unlikely that it will take you much less than an hour to get to the airport. At Heathrow, there is simply no way - NO WAY AT ALL - that any airline is going to let you check in ten minutes before your flight is scheduled to depart. Security at Heathrow is often slow and tedious, and boarding gates are a significant distance from the check-in zones at terminals. Ten minutes isn't enough, even if you're only travelling with your purse. The minimum they'll give you is half an hour, although there may be different rules for certain airlines (e.g. Virgin Atlantic Upper Class Clubhouse check-in), but I don't believe they apply here. Allowing for traffic, waiting for trains/buses, minor delays here and there etc, plus the minimum check-in time, we're looking at an hour and a half before you're even on the plane. Add that to the one hour gate to gate, plus the extra 30-45 minutes of getting off the plane and getting to Media City, and we're actually looking at more like three hours each way, not one.

Now, sure, you've got to get to the station to get a train to Manchester - but the trip to London Euston from a central London hotel is quite a lot shorter than getting to the airport, and you just step on to the train with no check-in or security hassle. And then a twenty minute taxi ride from Manchester Piccadilly - the taxi is two minutes from the train, and there's no baggage reconciliation or long walks - to Media City. Again, allowing some room for error, it's about three hours door to door.

Going by air doesn't offer a faster journey overall, and it's arguably a lot more hassle, and presenting it as 'one hour each way' against the train is just nonsense. And I've explained why your idea of scheduling guests to fly up on the first morning flight with virtually no room for error also makes absolutely no sense.

...so I just don't understand what you're getting so defensive about in all these posts, Stuart; as with the Breakfast relocation itself, there's really not much in your posts that can reasonably be defended.
DI
digipal
I know I've mentioned this before...

What would have been wrong with a relocation to BH and a ground floor studio view of the (now being built) BH plaza a la TODAY in NYC

Could have had mini concerts, etc in the plaza as well
CH
chris_rgu
does anyone know when the move is meant to take place?
NJ
news junkie
I read on one of the newspaper websites it was 2012. Staff have apparently six months to decide. Bill Turnbull is apparently moving
ST
Stuart
...so I just don't understand what you're getting so defensive about in all these posts, Stuart; as with the Breakfast relocation itself, there's really not much in your posts that can reasonably be defended.

If you read all my posts you would realise that I am not in favour of the relocation because it separates the programme from the rest of the BBC News operation in London.

However, I don't believe that the presumed difficulty in getting people to appear in Manchester is a valid reason to dismiss the plan.

We could debate travel arrangements for ever and a day, but I don't believe that it's a deal-breaking issue for most people who want free publicity. That's worth more to many than an early start and a couple of hours travelling, or a night in a hotel.

Alternatively, for the A-list divas who refuse to travel, they just send someone to London to interview them in their hotel. That's something they do even now, even though they're based in London.
Last edited by Stuart on 14 July 2010 9:53pm
LM
Lee M
What an unfortunate decision. Like it or lump it, London is the political, cultural, financial and economic powerhouse of the UK. It is where things really happen, and for Breakfast to be moved out of the capital makes no sense whatsoever. It is quite the gift to ITV as Daybreak begins, they are probably going to have a near-monopoly on the valuable guests, whereas Breakfast will be stuck with down-the-line studios (and if this move does go ahead, I hope they invest in an upgrade of the on-screen appearance of the down-the-line studios, as the poor quality keyed backgrounds of Westminster and Central London will be shown up in even more light).

How many times are we going to hear "Joining us from our London studio" compared to how many times we hear "Joining us from our Manchester studio" at present?
Last edited by Lee M on 14 July 2010 10:03pm
SP
Steve in Pudsey
Or how about ditching the fluffy stuff after 0830 and continuing with proper news up to 0900, followed by a separate magazine based programme from London, with access to the A listers etc? The BBC Trust were critical of the BBC1 daytime schedule, so that might be a way to improve things.
ST
Stuart
Lee M posted:
Like it or lump it, London is the political, cultural, business and economic powerhouse of the UK. It is where things really happen , and for Breakfast to be moved out of the capital makes no sense whatsoever.

You're implying that nothing real ever happens outside London.

What complete and utter rubbish!

Steve in Pudsey probably has the best idea - stick the 'fluffy stuff' in a separate programme from London.
LM
Lee M
Lee M posted:
Like it or lump it, London is the political, cultural, business and economic powerhouse of the UK. It is where things really happen , and for Breakfast to be moved out of the capital makes no sense whatsoever.

You're implying that nothing real ever happens outside London.

What complete and utter rubbish!


Of course not, but London "generates" stories in far higher proportion to the rest of the country.
CH
chris_rgu
Lee M posted:
Like it or lump it, London is the political, cultural, business and economic powerhouse of the UK. It is where things really happen , and for Breakfast to be moved out of the capital makes no sense whatsoever.

You're implying that nothing real ever happens outside London.

What complete and utter rubbish!


No, he's saying that some of the big stories that breakfast covers originate in London - the government are there, the stock exchange etc etc.
SP
Steve in Pudsey
I guess it is true that both This Morning and (to a lesser extent) The One Show moved to London to be able to get better guests.

On the presenting front, 5 Live is moving to Salford, could it be that some of their presenters will become more bi-media, and be used for cover, particularly for short notice absences?

Newer posts