GATWICK
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA will launch flights from LGW to VIE from the 17th September. Flights will operate 6 x weekly until 23rd October. The frequency will be reduced to 4 x weekly for W15/16
Until 23rd October 2015
BA2658 LGW 16:00 VIE 19:10 x6
BA2659 VIE 20:00 LGW 21:30 x6
From 25th October 2015
BA2658 LGW 16:00 VIE 19:10 x236
BA2659 VIE 20:00 LGW 21:30 x236
Until 23rd October 2015
BA2658 LGW 16:00 VIE 19:10 x6
BA2659 VIE 20:00 LGW 21:30 x6
From 25th October 2015
BA2658 LGW 16:00 VIE 19:10 x236
BA2659 VIE 20:00 LGW 21:30 x236
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EI-BUD
Historically BA were far more interested in maximising yield from lower volumes than filling aircraft and diluting the yield, the difference is now that you pay for luggage and all manner of other things, so filling the aircraft is more important and more seats (if you can fill them) makes more money.
Although the route Vueling seem to be taking with their high density AIRBUS pushing 186 seats at 29" pitch!! might be ok with the somewhat shorter Spanish clients but won't go down well with leggy Brits
Although the route Vueling seem to be taking with their high density AIRBUS pushing 186 seats at 29" pitch!! might be ok with the somewhat shorter Spanish clients but won't go down well with leggy Brits
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Icelandair
Icelandair to Acquire two Boeing 767?s For Heathrow Route :: Routesonline
Gatwick-Reykjavik service is also due to increase to a daily frequency in 2016
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ballymena
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have always been slightly puzzled by this accepted concept that Lgw can be a death bed for many airlines but Lhr is the place to make loads of money. The reason I get confused is this. Many talk about Lgw being just a waiting room for Lhr. Maybe that is true. What puzzles me is those who make it work. Emirates, Turkish and now we read that Icelandair is taking their Lgw service to daily from 2016. Not all airlines have made a success of Lhr, I think I am right in saying that China Airlines and Philippines Airlines both cut back on services? I also assume that BA and VS have not lost money on ALL their routes over all the years they have been operated, yet kept them going, from Lgw.
I read recently that Air China claimed that they could fill 4 flights a day ex London, if only they could get the slots. So are they saying that out of that demand, which they cannot satisfy as they cannot get the slots at Lhr, that they could not get enough pax to pay a decent yield to operate one flight a day ex Lgw. I know that Air China did operate briefly from Lgw.
So I am wondering this:
1. Do airlines have a fascination with Lhr, to the point of making poor decisions? Think Vietnam Airlines. How will they benefit when they have no direct competition from London.
2. Does a service from Lgw have a bigger effect on their Lhr flights than they thought would happen? The Lhr flight is weakened more that they thought so they pull Lgw. Neither Air China nor Korean gave their Lgw service much of a chance so I am not sure how they could decide so quickly.
3. Lhr claims to have about 30 airlines on a waiting list, some waiting for years. So are they all saying that it is better to wait for years with no service than try Lgw?
One of the reasons prompting my thinking is that not all big companies make good decisions, there are obvious examples at the minute. Is the dislike of Lgw really all based on fact, or a lot of it on opinion? The rest are in Lhr, we need to be there as well mentality.
TB
I read recently that Air China claimed that they could fill 4 flights a day ex London, if only they could get the slots. So are they saying that out of that demand, which they cannot satisfy as they cannot get the slots at Lhr, that they could not get enough pax to pay a decent yield to operate one flight a day ex Lgw. I know that Air China did operate briefly from Lgw.
So I am wondering this:
1. Do airlines have a fascination with Lhr, to the point of making poor decisions? Think Vietnam Airlines. How will they benefit when they have no direct competition from London.
2. Does a service from Lgw have a bigger effect on their Lhr flights than they thought would happen? The Lhr flight is weakened more that they thought so they pull Lgw. Neither Air China nor Korean gave their Lgw service much of a chance so I am not sure how they could decide so quickly.
3. Lhr claims to have about 30 airlines on a waiting list, some waiting for years. So are they all saying that it is better to wait for years with no service than try Lgw?
One of the reasons prompting my thinking is that not all big companies make good decisions, there are obvious examples at the minute. Is the dislike of Lgw really all based on fact, or a lot of it on opinion? The rest are in Lhr, we need to be there as well mentality.
TB
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have always been slightly puzzled by this accepted concept that Lgw can be a death bed for many airlines but Lhr is the place to make loads of money. The reason I get confused is this. Many talk about Lgw being just a waiting room for Lhr. Maybe that is true. What puzzles me is those who make it work. Emirates, Turkish and now we read that Icelandair is taking their Lgw service to daily from 2016. Not all airlines have made a success of Lhr, I think I am right in saying that China Airlines and Philippines Airlines both cut back on services? I also assume that BA and VS have not lost money on ALL their routes over all the years they have been operated, yet kept them going, from Lgw.
It's not "talk" about LGW being a waiting room for LHR, it is, although this applies to longhaul operators, again a recent case in point is Vietnam Airlines which has just finished its stint in the waiting room and shifted to LHR-4.
I read recently that Air China claimed that they could fill 4 flights a day ex London, if only they could get the slots. So are they saying that out of that demand, which they cannot satisfy as they cannot get the slots at Lhr, that they could not get enough pax to pay a decent yield to operate one flight a day ex Lgw. I know that Air China did operate briefly from Lgw.
So I am wondering this:
1. Do airlines have a fascination with Lhr, to the point of making poor decisions? Think Vietnam Airlines. How will they benefit when they have no direct competition from London.
2. Does a service from Lgw have a bigger effect on their Lhr flights than they thought would happen? The Lhr flight is weakened more that they thought so they pull Lgw. Neither Air China nor Korean gave their Lgw service much of a chance so I am not sure how they could decide so quickly.
3. Lhr claims to have about 30 airlines on a waiting list, some waiting for years. So are they all saying that it is better to wait for years with no service than try Lgw?
1. Do airlines have a fascination with Lhr, to the point of making poor decisions? Think Vietnam Airlines. How will they benefit when they have no direct competition from London.
2. Does a service from Lgw have a bigger effect on their Lhr flights than they thought would happen? The Lhr flight is weakened more that they thought so they pull Lgw. Neither Air China nor Korean gave their Lgw service much of a chance so I am not sure how they could decide so quickly.
3. Lhr claims to have about 30 airlines on a waiting list, some waiting for years. So are they all saying that it is better to wait for years with no service than try Lgw?
2. It's not always cost-effective for carriers to operate from 2 airports in the same market. Turn it on it's head and look at BA: doing 2 airports in New York, Paris and Tokyo from Heathrow works, doing 2 in Moscow doesn't.
3. See 2 above, in some cases, yes, in others, no.
One of the reasons prompting my thinking is that not all big companies make good decisions, there are obvious examples at the minute. Is the dislike of Lgw really all based on fact, or a lot of it on opinion? The rest are in Lhr, we need to be there as well mentality.
TB
TB
LGW isn't in the same league as LHR, so it's not comparing like with like. In many cases, LHR will be the only UK airport served. If it is not available, another airport in the same league may be needed (to make adequate money from premium business and connecting pax, etc.) and this means AMS, CDG, FRA, etc., not LGW.
This is yet another reason why LHR expansion is needed and needed now.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neither Air China nor Korean gave their Lgw service much of a chance so I am not sure how they could decide so quickly.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACL Summer 2015 Start of Season Report
http://www.acl-uk.org/UserFiles/File...rtofSeason.pdf
Movements and seats are up by 3 to 5% on last Summer. 1.8M additional seats are on sale. The biggest increases are from Easyjet, BA, Norwegian and Vueling, offsetting a substantial reduction by Monarch.
Movements and seats are up by 3 to 5% on last Summer. 1.8M additional seats are on sale. The biggest increases are from Easyjet, BA, Norwegian and Vueling, offsetting a substantial reduction by Monarch.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anna list
Many thanks for the link. An interesting read. As some have previously indicated on here, still quite a bit of capacity at certain times of the day even peak season.
Is this how BA manages to keep slipping in some new routes? For example Vienna announced late last week from September. Does anyone know how many slots they got back from Aer Lingus?
Dominance of EasyJet obviously apparent. (just like BA at Heathrow)
Thanks again.
V.
Many thanks for the link. An interesting read. As some have previously indicated on here, still quite a bit of capacity at certain times of the day even peak season.
Is this how BA manages to keep slipping in some new routes? For example Vienna announced late last week from September. Does anyone know how many slots they got back from Aer Lingus?
Dominance of EasyJet obviously apparent. (just like BA at Heathrow)
Thanks again.
V.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 2,781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True Blue,
Re LGW and LHR post.
I see 3 advantages at work here. Ability to make a connection on the same ticket ( as opposed to booking separate tickets or using low cost airlines). The scale of the alliances helps too, with all being well represented.
The catchment around LHR is huge in West London and makes LHR an attractive choice.
Having the tube is a plus, eventhough not any faster to central London than LGW (slower in the main), but attractive price wise. Though on.the while train ticket price only a part of it!
Re LGW and LHR post.
I see 3 advantages at work here. Ability to make a connection on the same ticket ( as opposed to booking separate tickets or using low cost airlines). The scale of the alliances helps too, with all being well represented.
The catchment around LHR is huge in West London and makes LHR an attractive choice.
Having the tube is a plus, eventhough not any faster to central London than LGW (slower in the main), but attractive price wise. Though on.the while train ticket price only a part of it!
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Norwegian Long Haul
Norwegian are increasing JFK to daily from next February, and apparently 4 weekly rather than 3 during the rest of the winter although it is not bookable yet. Still no news on what will fill the gaps in the long haul schedule though, does anyone have any for information on what this may be?
http://airlineroute.net/2015/03/24/dy-lgwjfk-feb16/
http://airlineroute.net/2015/03/24/dy-lgwjfk-feb16/
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would think it ill be Oakland or Bangkok, that latter perhaps being most suited to a winter start. Out of interest roughly when will Norwegian receive their first 787-9 in 2016?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Norwegian are due to announce a new long haul route from LGW after easter as per their Facebook page. It was due to be announced this week but they have postponed it due to the Germanwings crash and wanting to respect those affected by it, which is understandable.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: southern spain
Posts: 1,986
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What on earth has the tragic Germanwings crash got to do with announcing a new route from London Gatwick by Norwegian? More like not getting the publicity they were hoping for. It hasnīt stopped other airlines announcing changes to schedules, new routes etc. but there again I am just an old cynic.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may just be a case of bad taste, a few days after an aviation disaster you have another major european airline going PR crazy over some new routes, although I would have thought they would have just pushed it back a few days rather than a couple of weeks. I've read elsewhere that BGI or LAS are rumoured, and of course OAK and BKK keep being brought up so I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LGW-JFK
It seems that New York will now operate daily from 25th October this year, with Los Angeles being 3 weekly. Fort Lauderdale is also now on sale 2x weekly for the winter (Mon/Fri) so allowing for a days rest for each aircraft this completes the winter schedule for long haul. I expect the new route will be for next summer based on this information, which makes sense since it will most likely coincide with the delivery of the first 789's for Norwegian.
Last edited by adfly; 30th Mar 2015 at 14:16.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: London
Posts: 837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How are load factors doing on Norwegian long haul routes?
It makes perfect sense to fly daily to JFK. If they want to properly compete with the LHR operators they need to offer a frequent service.
I hope that SFO, IAD & BKK might be in the cards when the next routes are announced
It makes perfect sense to fly daily to JFK. If they want to properly compete with the LHR operators they need to offer a frequent service.
I hope that SFO, IAD & BKK might be in the cards when the next routes are announced