GATWICK
Discussion elsewhere on the web about Jakarta airport's operator reducing the PCN, meaning a fully loaded B773 is too heavy and thus Garuda will have to fly Jakarata-Singapore, refuel and then fly onto Europe. In the other direction refuelling would not be necessary.
I'm very dubious that an Amsterdam-Gatwick-Amsterdam tag-on brings in positive cashflow compared to sitting on the ground at Amsterdam for a few hours or taking feed from KLM, but I don't have access to the confidential numbers so can only make an opinionated guess.
Anyone have any thoughts as to whether Garuda will still be flying to London (Gatwick, or even Heathrow) beyond late October 2015 ?
I'm very dubious that an Amsterdam-Gatwick-Amsterdam tag-on brings in positive cashflow compared to sitting on the ground at Amsterdam for a few hours or taking feed from KLM, but I don't have access to the confidential numbers so can only make an opinionated guess.
Anyone have any thoughts as to whether Garuda will still be flying to London (Gatwick, or even Heathrow) beyond late October 2015 ?
Paxing All Over The World
True Blue
They are now - well and truly - full.
LHR ossifies - as it has already started to do.
We shall never know but I'd say they wanted it to work as a pump primer to build routes until they could get to LHR.
Which is why I have been saying for five years (in the threads related to this issue) that it is already too late.
The delays of the last 25 years have allowed:
Gatwick is a side show because of the failure of all govts over the last 30 years and nothing can change it now. Even if we got LHR 3 and LGW 2, it's 'game over'.
Sorry but that's how it looks to me.
But Lhr has taken the 9 steps you give above, where do they go from here?
At some point the three costs you state will become uneconomic, even at Lhr. It might take them a while to figure that out, due to ego, but it will happen. So what do they do then?
I look at some of these carriers who moved quickly to Lhr and I ask myself, did they really want their Lgw service to succeed at all?
At the end of the day, it is only when we look back in maybe 10/15 years time that we will see who was right. In the meantime, a great debate and a lot to play for for both airports and the country.
The delays of the last 25 years have allowed:
- Regional fields to open up
- FRA/AMS/CDG to take the expansion
- The Middle East hubs have opened
- The LCCs took the feeders and regionals and underminded the Legacy cash flows
Gatwick is a side show because of the failure of all govts over the last 30 years and nothing can change it now. Even if we got LHR 3 and LGW 2, it's 'game over'.
Sorry but that's how it looks to me.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PAXboy
I think its a long way from being 'game over'
LHR & LGW serve different markets, of course there is some over lap and some who fly from LHR would fly LGW if they lived South rather than North of London and the other way round.
Skippy has pointed out that LGW is not a true hub, although it does have some connecting flights and many DIY options.
LGW is the world's busiest single runway airport and heavily relies excellent ATC and mainly local based pilots who understand what is required, hence the fact that Turkish have had to have 'follow me' cars because they don't understand or comply !!
That it needs another runway is without doubt in my mind.
LHR needs either at least one additional runway or moving, the delays inbound even in good weather cost money, missed connections and a lot of additional fuel burn and pollution due holding, surely the whole point of an hub airport is reliability, come TS or stormy weather, BA will start to cancel the short haul stuff to the likes of LBA/EDI/GLA, thus encouraging long haul passengers to route through AMS in future.
At the end of the day it will be a political decision, but go back to 1997 and Lord Prescott said at the time 'do nothing is not an option' had Labour been elected in in 2010 then work would likely have been underway by now, the delay is an acceptable price for them not having be so elected, but this should not be allowed to go on for another 30 years.
LHR & LGW serve different markets, of course there is some over lap and some who fly from LHR would fly LGW if they lived South rather than North of London and the other way round.
Skippy has pointed out that LGW is not a true hub, although it does have some connecting flights and many DIY options.
LGW is the world's busiest single runway airport and heavily relies excellent ATC and mainly local based pilots who understand what is required, hence the fact that Turkish have had to have 'follow me' cars because they don't understand or comply !!
That it needs another runway is without doubt in my mind.
LHR needs either at least one additional runway or moving, the delays inbound even in good weather cost money, missed connections and a lot of additional fuel burn and pollution due holding, surely the whole point of an hub airport is reliability, come TS or stormy weather, BA will start to cancel the short haul stuff to the likes of LBA/EDI/GLA, thus encouraging long haul passengers to route through AMS in future.
At the end of the day it will be a political decision, but go back to 1997 and Lord Prescott said at the time 'do nothing is not an option' had Labour been elected in in 2010 then work would likely have been underway by now, the delay is an acceptable price for them not having be so elected, but this should not be allowed to go on for another 30 years.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Outer London
Age: 43
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt very much that a Labour government in 2010 would have got on with an extra runway. Besides, after 1997 they also had the parliaments commencing in 2001 and 2005 which came and went with nothing but hot air
Paxing All Over The World
LNIDA
This is the gatters thread that hass diverged slightly. I normally only say in LHR or threads relating to extra capacity at the hub/south east that:
It's game over for LHR as an international hub to be reckoned with. The European hubs are all established and streets ahead of us. The ME hubs will continue to buy UK biz.
Simple Example from : MAN
LGW/STN/LTN will continue doing their own sweet things but the UK will not have an international hub to challenge Europe. I'll stop as I'm repeating myself and boring everyone.
I think its a long way from being 'game over'
It's game over for LHR as an international hub to be reckoned with. The European hubs are all established and streets ahead of us. The ME hubs will continue to buy UK biz.
Simple Example from : MAN
- Direct to DXB-DOH then SYD-MEL-PER-BNE
- Direct AMS-FRA then onward
- Car/Train/Coach to LHR and still have a plane change or tech stop in SIN/BKK etc.
LGW/STN/LTN will continue doing their own sweet things but the UK will not have an international hub to challenge Europe. I'll stop as I'm repeating myself and boring everyone.
PAXboy
What you say is true BUT, there Is no reason that 'LL could not become a hub on the lines of Amsterdam, Paris & Frankfurt.
All that it needs is the infrastructure to support it - basically terminals, taxiways & runways. Once it has these, IF it EVER does, then it can start competing with those other airports as a hub (international & domestic).
After all, they have all overtaken 'LL because they have the required facilities (allowing them to open & develop the routes which 'LL lacks).
Why shouldn't 'LL claw back some of the business once it has been developed appropriately to enable it do so ?
As I understand it, that is the suggested reason for an extra runway at 'LL - to enable it to expand to meet the, apparent, demand ie new, & more frequent, services & connecting them to domestic & European destinations. Certainly, in the Channel Islands, we are hoping to be able to connect with the myriad of Heathrow destinations (as opposed to the paucity of ' KK ones). I am sure that the same applies to other provincial cities etc. which do not presently have links to 'LL.
What you say is true BUT, there Is no reason that 'LL could not become a hub on the lines of Amsterdam, Paris & Frankfurt.
All that it needs is the infrastructure to support it - basically terminals, taxiways & runways. Once it has these, IF it EVER does, then it can start competing with those other airports as a hub (international & domestic).
After all, they have all overtaken 'LL because they have the required facilities (allowing them to open & develop the routes which 'LL lacks).
Why shouldn't 'LL claw back some of the business once it has been developed appropriately to enable it do so ?
As I understand it, that is the suggested reason for an extra runway at 'LL - to enable it to expand to meet the, apparent, demand ie new, & more frequent, services & connecting them to domestic & European destinations. Certainly, in the Channel Islands, we are hoping to be able to connect with the myriad of Heathrow destinations (as opposed to the paucity of ' KK ones). I am sure that the same applies to other provincial cities etc. which do not presently have links to 'LL.
Easyjet have approx 44 % of summer 2015 ATMs at Gatwick. Add Monarch, Thomas Cook and Thomson, and you hit almost 57% of ATMs. Gatwick is not exactly known for being empty at peak times. Granted a 2nd runway would mean many more ATMs become possible, but this is still a sizeable number of slots
The moment Easyjet start offering connecting flights (ie airline bears risk of delays and luggage can be checked through) is the moment Gatwick might have a non-zero chance of becoming a hub. Until then, Gatwick hasn't got a hope of becoming a hub
The moment Easyjet start offering connecting flights (ie airline bears risk of delays and luggage can be checked through) is the moment Gatwick might have a non-zero chance of becoming a hub. Until then, Gatwick hasn't got a hope of becoming a hub
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
davidjohnson6
Its worth pointing out that Norwegian have a 105 routes from LGW that you can through ticket i.e. the airline takes the risk including USA destinations, of course most tickets are point to point, but you'd be surprised of at the number using Norwegians's connecting hubs of which LGW (for Norwegian) is fast becoming one.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say I was surprised at the number of passengers connecting onwards to Europe when I flew LGW-LAX-LGW with Norwegian last year. Heard passengers talking about going onwards to Bergen, Barcelona, Rome and Malaga.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Outer London
Age: 43
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I made a similar point to dj6 offline the other day.
There is a fixation on hubs and networks as we know them.
But what if something came along that was a game-changer? EZY/FR getting into long-haul and connections in a big way? Smaller aircraft with long range coming on the market making LBA/SOU and any other regional airport inbetween non-stop to NYC plausible?
Then is an extra runway at LHR compared to LGW/STN so important?
There is a fixation on hubs and networks as we know them.
But what if something came along that was a game-changer? EZY/FR getting into long-haul and connections in a big way? Smaller aircraft with long range coming on the market making LBA/SOU and any other regional airport inbetween non-stop to NYC plausible?
Then is an extra runway at LHR compared to LGW/STN so important?
Paxing All Over The World
AirportPlanner1
You are absolutely right - something might.
However, in corporate life, events actually move more slowly. From first flight to being the mainstream, how long did these take to gestate to maturity?
Given the hideous amounts of money imnvolved in changing regulations for aircraft operations and airports - or the cost of developing new equipment, we can be sure that that wil not happen for some times.
I agree that if some LCCs go full time for interlining etc that WILL be a change. But, not all of them will do it and it would only be a return to form of the way the legacies have operated from the start. Some LCCs want to graduate to being 'the big boys' but most of them don't because they have made their money as LCCs and seen the legacies lose money.
In my view, the UK is small and continuing to reduce in global influence and trade and demand is not going to increase dramatically in that route. Meantime, the M4 corridor and companies who have based themselves around LHR - will continue but not expand and certainly not until this wretchedy stupid right wing 'lets cut ourselves off from Europe' things is past. That is another story but, having it loom will freeze many things and, even if we get the yes vote - another set of years will have passed and more confidence ebbed and more chances lost.
Lastly, I spent 27 years working in corporates, both British and international. The one thing I saw more than anything else was 'caution'. The companies that really rock the boat? They are very few and very far between. Since the crash of 2008 (whose effects we shall be feeling for at least another five years) not many companies want to try something new.
Ergo - I think that nothing will happen.
But what if something came along that was a game-changer?
However, in corporate life, events actually move more slowly. From first flight to being the mainstream, how long did these take to gestate to maturity?
- Boeing 747 in 1970
- Southwest Airlines started operating in 1971
- Boeing 767 in 1982
- RyanAir adopted their current policy (LCC) in 1986
- Internet: began to be open to the public from the early 1990s
Given the hideous amounts of money imnvolved in changing regulations for aircraft operations and airports - or the cost of developing new equipment, we can be sure that that wil not happen for some times.
I agree that if some LCCs go full time for interlining etc that WILL be a change. But, not all of them will do it and it would only be a return to form of the way the legacies have operated from the start. Some LCCs want to graduate to being 'the big boys' but most of them don't because they have made their money as LCCs and seen the legacies lose money.
In my view, the UK is small and continuing to reduce in global influence and trade and demand is not going to increase dramatically in that route. Meantime, the M4 corridor and companies who have based themselves around LHR - will continue but not expand and certainly not until this wretchedy stupid right wing 'lets cut ourselves off from Europe' things is past. That is another story but, having it loom will freeze many things and, even if we get the yes vote - another set of years will have passed and more confidence ebbed and more chances lost.
Lastly, I spent 27 years working in corporates, both British and international. The one thing I saw more than anything else was 'caution'. The companies that really rock the boat? They are very few and very far between. Since the crash of 2008 (whose effects we shall be feeling for at least another five years) not many companies want to try something new.
Ergo - I think that nothing will happen.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BHX5DME.
Interesting on the news today David Cameron apparently "Warming" to a 2nd runway at Gatwick.
Will be very interesting if the airport commission report back that due to high pollution around LHR , Gatwick is their preferred option to recommend for a 2nd runway.
However nothing is that simple.
Interesting on the news today David Cameron apparently "Warming" to a 2nd runway at Gatwick.
Will be very interesting if the airport commission report back that due to high pollution around LHR , Gatwick is their preferred option to recommend for a 2nd runway.
However nothing is that simple.
With Easy Jet saying they would prefer a 2nd runway at LHR and many long haul scheduled airlines seemingly just using Gatwick to lodge until they can get into LHR there are problems.
Low cost airlines probably don't contribute enough to re pay for a 2nd runway at Gatwick and what percentage of flts are low cost out of their 50% perhaps ?
Another article claiming last week that therefore a congestion charge may be needed around Gatwick to pay for a 2nd runway and curb pollution.
Low cost airlines probably don't contribute enough to re pay for a 2nd runway at Gatwick and what percentage of flts are low cost out of their 50% perhaps ?
Another article claiming last week that therefore a congestion charge may be needed around Gatwick to pay for a 2nd runway and curb pollution.
The govt may have to try and force the big scheduled airlines to migrate from LHR to Gatwick, but how would that work .. has failed before ?
Star Alliance get moved to to Gatwick but Sky Team you can stay at LHR.. would Star Alliance buy that with probably higher business passenger revenue out of LHR.
Oh if we could only go back to the glory years at LGW in the 70s/80s/90s when it was a much fairer balance between the two. Be interesting to see how it develops and how many years it takes to get a new runway up and running in the SE !
Nigel
Star Alliance get moved to to Gatwick but Sky Team you can stay at LHR.. would Star Alliance buy that with probably higher business passenger revenue out of LHR.
Oh if we could only go back to the glory years at LGW in the 70s/80s/90s when it was a much fairer balance between the two. Be interesting to see how it develops and how many years it takes to get a new runway up and running in the SE !
Nigel
Also bear in mind that in the "glory years at LGW in the 70s/80s/90s", all the UK carriers that were denied access to Heathrow and forced to use Gatwick as a base went belly-up.
Only VS didn’t, because it was able to move its base to Heathrow.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No explanation, one needed please!
The last few pages of debate have been interesting, well-informed and comprehensive.
Unfortunately there has been no explanation of how a second rwy at Gatwick (and by implication, no third rwy at Heathrow) even starts to address the basic problem of no spare rwy capacity at the UK's only hub airport.
Unfortunately there has been no explanation of how a second rwy at Gatwick (and by implication, no third rwy at Heathrow) even starts to address the basic problem of no spare rwy capacity at the UK's only hub airport.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: England
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been through Gatwick twice recently. I do love the airport.
But it might as well change it's name to 'Gatwick: Sponsored by Easyjet'. If you didn't know otherwise, you'd think they were the only airline there.
Most disappointed to see they've built in front of the North departure lounge. You can't see any aircraft or airfield at all
But it might as well change it's name to 'Gatwick: Sponsored by Easyjet'. If you didn't know otherwise, you'd think they were the only airline there.
Most disappointed to see they've built in front of the North departure lounge. You can't see any aircraft or airfield at all
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LadyL2013
Yes easyJet certainly are the largest by a long way but there is plenty of variety to be found behind the sea of orange.
Davis commission
I think that if it has to be an additional runway at LHR or LGW then it should be LHR. I would prefer an additional runway at both airports if that is possible within the airspace constraints. The noise and pollution concerns whilst valid will become less of an issue over the next 20 years, aircraft will become quieter and vehicle emission will reduce with new generation of petrol engines coming to the market, stop/start technology is already having an impact.
If LGW gets the go ahead then i can't wait to see them tearing down the beehive
Davis commission
I think that if it has to be an additional runway at LHR or LGW then it should be LHR. I would prefer an additional runway at both airports if that is possible within the airspace constraints. The noise and pollution concerns whilst valid will become less of an issue over the next 20 years, aircraft will become quieter and vehicle emission will reduce with new generation of petrol engines coming to the market, stop/start technology is already having an impact.
If LGW gets the go ahead then i can't wait to see them tearing down the beehive
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts