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.
Carriers are not homogeneous, some can operate at LGW some can't, some can do both LGW and LHR. Very few can't make LHR work and those that quit are usually in dire financial straits and sell/lease their LHR slots to avoid going under. Cyprus Airways is a recent case in point.
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.
Maybe it's one of the carriers that can't justify the expense of two London destinations.
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. No, Vietnam Airlines have access to a high level of business/premium pax at LHR which simply isn't available at LGW, plus access to connectivity and a Skyteam hub, which again, isn't available at 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
It's not a question of "dislike", it's all about making a profit. Who would operate a service that loses money?
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.