Quote: "What profits Frank? The airline lost 80 million last year. Only going to operate the domestic routes until they can use them for long haul citing continuous losses and then transferring the remaining Gatwick services at the same time so by saving even more costs. Just my two pennyworth."
Was quoting, compton3bravo, as I understood it, they meant that any profits in general terms that may accrue at LHR would be losses at LGW. So if they're losing at LHR, they'd lose shed-loads more at LGW. Was agreeing with the point.
Quote: "Sorry Frank where do you get the idea of more long haul flights from LGW. Me thinks it is the other way - less."
Never said there would be more longhaul from LGW, it's definitely the other way!
Indeed if LHR is ever expanded, would expect both VS and BA to abandon LGW completely.
Actually wrote the following about the idea of VS leaving LHR completely and moving to LGW:
------------- Will never happen! They will never leave the world's largest international hub and third largest overall, it would be suicide! VS saved their bacon by shifting to LHR in the 1980s, had they not done so, they would probably have gone the same way as BUA, BCal and Laker: belly up. There isn't sufficient connectivity at LGW, it is not a hub airport. BTW there is already an "anchor tenant" at LGW, it is U2.
so think we agree about longhaul at LGW.
Quote: "The airlines operating long haul flights only use LGW because they cannot get slots at LHR. When they become available they move across. LGW in my opinion will NEVER be able to compete with LHR, Paris, Amsterdam etc on long haul destinations it will remain a short/medium operation - nothing wrong with that - with a few long haul leisure destinations and don΄t let GIP brainwash in telling you otherwise."
Exactly, LGW is a waiting room for longhaul. In fact if LHR is expanded, LGW may not need to be, as much of its traffic (particularly longhaul) will shift to LHR. Does not work the same in reverse.
It was showing as an A319 on the timetable, which Monarch doesn't have (at least not at the moment).
VS3041 LHR0920 1020MAN 319 D VS3043 LHR1610 1710MAN 319 D VS3045 LHR2010 2110MAN 319 D VS3046 MAN0650 0800LHR 319 D VS3042 MAN1220 1330LHR 319 D VS3044 MAN1750 1900LHR 319 D
Its Jet2 with a clapped out rotten B737 classic.....this is a rumour network after all.
Jet2's 737s have fully refurbished interiors, they're very snazzy and red (if not particularly comfortable). The cabins are in better shape than some of BA's A319s. Would suit Virgin, but the service is listed as an A319 (see above).
This would be interesting to see and ties in well with the comments coming from Flybe that they'd like to explore contract flying opportunities with other carriers.
With crew bases at all the likely places that Virgin would want to be flying to LHR from, this could also be a lower cost option removing hotel costs for crew which might offset the reduced seating capacity.
With aircraft on order from Embraer, maybe Flybe would be able to free up some E195's to assist Virgin? It's an interesting prospect but would the partial BA ownership and codeshares be put at risk by such a move?
Last edited by JobsaGoodun; 24th Aug 2012 at 09:48.
I think there's another element driving VS. As long as they have to put their passengers on BA domestics there is a commercial issue. BA will lift the ticket coupon at Manchester and that will give them visibility of the fare ladder routing etc. With their own flights they can keep that data in house. It also extends their reach for Upper Class because they will be able to offer limo service to a large tranche of the NW plus most of the populated bits of Scotland (even Glasgow).
I suspect that Hartington has it right plus the fact that any airline totally reliant on their major competitior for feed is accepting it is no longer in complete control of its destiny. Insofar as who will operate the service, there are a number of EU Ops 1 carriers with much lower crew costs than UK carriers which could provide the service at not a huge cost to VA.