I read you to be saying that LGW should not proceed under any circumstances. I'm surprised.
No I'm just angry that Gatwick Obviously are, in my view, peddling a myth that another runway at Gatters helps hub connectivity. Two airports working side by side and all that jazz. The market reality is far from that with no based airline offering meaningful hub capacity, not even BA who predicate their LGW model on point to point leisure.
Adam Thomson didn't want BCAL to be at LGW, he was at LGW only because he was frozen out of LHR to protect BA. Same with BUA, Laker and for the first six years, Virgin Atlantic. By all means expand LGW, I think there's a good case for that. However on one point Boris Johnson is correct, London needs one hub airport to be supported and expanded if the UK is to pay it's bills in the global economy. So in my view as well as his, support your hub. He wants to close LHR, I want to expand it, however in no reasonable scenario, and I understand the report will refelct this, will adding a runway at LGW
and not LHR result in any more long haul flights to connect us into global markets.
Because if I was running an airline into London, one of the greatest markets on earth, I think I would give Lgw a try rather than do nothing for years in the hope of getting a slot at Lhr
In long haul, if you offer LGW and someone else offers LHR, you'll only mop up low yield leisure with front end high yield choosing LHR. BA found this out when they ran a dual hub, African services moved from LHR to LGW saw their yield stay at LHR with the competition. Korean Air found this recently as did Air China. Garuda are currently flying fresh air between LGW and Jakarta and Vietnam have just gotten out of LGW for LHR.
and learn to think outside the box. Markets change, so do travel patterns and airlines.
In this case, it has been the same as always. Think ouotside the box all you like, EOS did, Silverjet did, Maxjet tried, Hong Kong Air attempted to, Norwegian are having a go, but up against critical mass, you more often than not lose badly. btw "out of the box"? Not when you're flying multi million $ assets about, look at the history and the numbers. A much better guide than blue sky thinking in most cases.
We have been told for a century now that Lhr is full.
Odd given it dates from 1947
And no, they will not up sticks and go the Paris etc, because the carrot which is London is just too big for them to resist.
Key point is most are ALLIANCE members so whereas continuing to serve London one stop via
STAR ALLIANCE FRA/ZRH/MUC or
SKYTEAM CDG/AMS
into LHR might make some money, a direct service to London-Gatwick probably will not. This is how LHR competes with continental hubs rather than LGW.