Originally Posted by
JW95
USA - I don't think Norse would wish to have a dual London operation from a cost-based perspective. IIRC, they did initially secure slots at STN before opting for LGW once slots there became available. LGW is also being flagged up as a base for Norse once they establish their UK based subsidiary, making an entry to STN even less likely. If anything, I do see scope for JetBlue to serve STN once more aircraft come online, and they have a sufficient number of daily rotations at both LHR and LGW before moving onto consider a third London airport. But I do think this will be some time yet. It's a shame that American Airlines couldn't make STN work when they tried in the 1990s and 2007-8, as it would be nice to see them back, perhaps this time with one of their A321NEOs.
I can't see AA at STN, their JV partner has more slots at LHR and LGW than they know what to do with given the demand, crew shortages and fleet retirements. As another poster said, the cost of living/recession situation in the UK is going to put a considerable dent in ex-UK demand. The Ukraine war puts a dent in ex-US demand, even if the USD remains strong compared to GBP and EUR.
I think Norse were probably the best chance STN has of west-bound long-haul, as a point to point airline. While EK has shown that ex-STN can work, they have such a huge hub in Dubai that it makes AA or B6's East Cost hubs look like regional focus cities, they cant get more slots in London for their hub banks. The p2p is just gravy. I think its fair to say that no-one has made long-haul point-to-point work yet, from the days of Laker's skytrain right the way through to Virgin Atlantic, Thomas Cook and Norwegian. The utilisation just cant be made high enough to get the unit costs low enough to sustainably offer low-fares without bleeding to death. The US3/EU3 are prepared to match/subsidise these loss leaders with profits from Premium and Business Class and higher fares on routes where they face no competition.