Skipness
You and a few others have been very consistent in your views re some parts of the Lgw operation, especially long haul.
On the BA thread I asked when BA started flying to Orlando. One reply said about 1987, I have no idea if it is right or wrong, but have no reason to believe the reply was not given in good faith.
On another forum there is a discussion running on the topic of BA transferring both the Orlando and Tampa flights to Lhr, on the basis that would be a much better result. The attitude is almost how dumb to keep those routes at Lgw. That is a view that comes through on a regular basis re any long haul route out of Lgw. It will fail at Lgw and anyway, Lgw is only the waiting room for a transfer to Lhr. The point has been made quite widely that any long haul route out of Lgw will lose money.
I have been following that argument for years now but found it difficult to understand, never mind believe. You see, Ba has had almost 30 years to transfer Orlando to Lhr, but so far, have chosen not to. So is it being suggested that BA are flying to Orlando 2 daily and losing or not making much money? Before the mass transfer to Lhr, Delta, American and Continental flew into Lgw for what, maybe 2 or 3 decades. For many years they had multiple flights a day with wide bodies and some of those routes also had a BA service. So are we suggesting that the American carriers flew into Lgw and were making no/very little money. But the point has always been made that there is more money to be made at Lhr, which I cannot dispute as I have no idea. And I know they had to use Lgw during this period.
But then on the "another runway at Lhr" thread, more light was shed on this idea that there is more money to be made at Lhr. In that discussion, if any of you have followed it, it becomes clear that fares are higher for a reason, limited supply. And because supply is maxed out, airlines can charge a higher fare there. Now we are starting to talk monopoly pricing. And what is clear is that routes into Lgw are probably not loss making, but make less because history has put Lhr into too dominant a position. So with BAA making sure Lhr was in a dominant position, neglect Lgw, get the co-operation of many of the other parts of the travel industry, you get a situation that is self-fulfilling and suits all at Lhr. Peddle a story that Lgw is just bucket and spade, Avios redemption, few if any business pax, lack of connectivity, keep packing them in at Lhr where it has been "full" for about 25 years and it all remains on message. Note the key issue here, fares are higher at Lhr. And who pays those higher fares?
Easyjet's submission to the commission has been quoted. Do you think Easyjet were speaking for themselves or for the good of joe public? Of course they don't want to pay for a new runway at Lgw, but would help to pay for a new one at Lhr where they say they would start services from. So what do they want out of this? Well, by the time a new runway appears at Lhr, demand will almost fill it straight away I bet. Many here believe that BA will move everything as will Virgin. Maybe also some of Easyjet plus more foreign carriers. So they will get access to higher fares at Lhr because by that time it will be near capacity constrained again. back to the supply and demand situation we have today, route as many through Lhr as possible. Meantime, Lgw will be decimated and the message that routes at Lgw fail will be trumpeted louder than ever. So those of you who support expansion at Lhr are basically supporting the idea that all of us should pay higher fares for ever, especially on long haul, to keep the establishment happy.
And no I don't agree that if the new runway goes to Lgw that airlines will go elsewhere. They will be in in a flash in spite of what they say. Because the truth is, long haul out of Gatwick does make money for the most, just not as much as some greedy airlines would like.
Please do not take my post personally, it is not meant to be.
TB