GATWICK
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not convinced that LGW would suffer that much, yes of course the mainly long haul routes of carriers that don't have access to LHR now would be ripe for migration and some short haul routes that are business centric might move, but for many LGW is very accessible and the access cost to airlines will likely remain below that of an expanded LHR.
Easy are very unlikely to move their entire operation to LHR but a base for their business routes would be logical
Easy are very unlikely to move their entire operation to LHR but a base for their business routes would be logical
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree--- main London base for EZY at Gatwick with a smaller premium operation at Heathrow could make sense. As well as LNIDA's correct points, I don't see EZY getting enough slots at Heathrow to move the entire operation. There is a massive difference between 'move into' and 'move to'.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the Business comment in today's "Times" reckons that mid east airlines will have so many flights into regional European airports by 2020 onwards that the need for a Big Hub at LHR will be unnecessary & unworkable - they reckon a second Gatwick runway will happen but not a third one at LHR
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Age: 63
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EasyJet today flies from four London airports. The only airport I see the word "move" can be used is at STN - in the the sense of "move from". For the three other airports the proper word would be "add" - as in add frequencies or add destinations. An opening at LHR the proper word again will be "add" - as in add service. I do think U2 flights in to LHR may "steal" passengers from their LTN and BRS operation more than from LGW, but the real losers will be the legacy carriers that have put all their eggs in to one London basket - at LHR.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Age: 63
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re. the Times Business comment
But LHR has never been a proper international hub for eastbound flights beyond Europe. It is easy to see if you compare the number BA and VS destinations/frequencies to the Far East with the number of westbound flights/destinations (USA and Canada). All MEB3 have their hubs in the Middle East and no European of sound mind will fly to the Middle East to catch a flight to the US. What about 5th freedom flights then? For now Emirates has only had one 5th freedom route from Europe to the US (DXB-MXP-JFK), but in April an Italian court ruled this service "violates international aviation laws". Etihad has tried a different approach with buying shares in the four European carriers Air Berlin, Darwin Airline, Air Serbia and Aer Lingus, but we haven't seen anything else than some of them feeding Etihad at some their European destinations. Again we are talking eastbound flights, not westbound.
I think the European legacy carriers will have more problems if or when the big LCCs and charter converts starts for real with flights over the Atlantic. Since many of these are represented at LGW, and not at LHR, I may agree with the Times saying a second runway at LGW will come anyway - the only difference is that the reasoning is different. The Times is too business oriented, the real growth to 2020 and beyond you will find in the leisure market, not in the business community that have stacked up with telepresence systems and their managers find better food in their local restaurant with a star or two in the Michelin Guide than on board a plane.
But LHR has never been a proper international hub for eastbound flights beyond Europe. It is easy to see if you compare the number BA and VS destinations/frequencies to the Far East with the number of westbound flights/destinations (USA and Canada). All MEB3 have their hubs in the Middle East and no European of sound mind will fly to the Middle East to catch a flight to the US. What about 5th freedom flights then? For now Emirates has only had one 5th freedom route from Europe to the US (DXB-MXP-JFK), but in April an Italian court ruled this service "violates international aviation laws". Etihad has tried a different approach with buying shares in the four European carriers Air Berlin, Darwin Airline, Air Serbia and Aer Lingus, but we haven't seen anything else than some of them feeding Etihad at some their European destinations. Again we are talking eastbound flights, not westbound.
I think the European legacy carriers will have more problems if or when the big LCCs and charter converts starts for real with flights over the Atlantic. Since many of these are represented at LGW, and not at LHR, I may agree with the Times saying a second runway at LGW will come anyway - the only difference is that the reasoning is different. The Times is too business oriented, the real growth to 2020 and beyond you will find in the leisure market, not in the business community that have stacked up with telepresence systems and their managers find better food in their local restaurant with a star or two in the Michelin Guide than on board a plane.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thing is, as Laker, Branson, People Express et al found out, you fly long haul, your loco model does not adapt to medium term survival. Any carrier that has lasted has either been a historical flag carrier or a newbie with a low cost base and a premium offering down the front. That ends up not being too different from the legacy flag carriers.
Ryanair and easyJet don't fly long haul with good reason, however you really mean Norwegian. This is the reason they're involved in ball busting cost control and having staff based anywhere but the Nordics for the new pretend it's a standalone long haul operation. I am not sure what you mean by "start for real", the first year of B787 ops has been a challenge and the schedule is that of a charter outfit. Growth may well be in leisure but if they're going to go after price conscious and low yield, then you are going to need a MASSIVELY low cost base.
Ryanair and easyJet don't fly long haul with good reason, however you really mean Norwegian. This is the reason they're involved in ball busting cost control and having staff based anywhere but the Nordics for the new pretend it's a standalone long haul operation. I am not sure what you mean by "start for real", the first year of B787 ops has been a challenge and the schedule is that of a charter outfit. Growth may well be in leisure but if they're going to go after price conscious and low yield, then you are going to need a MASSIVELY low cost base.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipness one echo
From an historical point of view you are of course correct and one should always consider history before re inventing the wheel
Norwegian are guilty of being naive in thinking that the B787 would be just like another B738 out of the box, fuel it up and off you go and had this company been a stand alone company it would have been bust by now, even as part of the Norwegian group it has negatively impacted the bottom line, attracted a lot of bad press and diverted management resource away from the bread and butter operation.
Will it work? well it appears to be doing so in Scandinavia despite the bad press, the UK market hasn't had anything like the press coverage on Norwegian that it has in it traditional home market.
The first long haul flight from LGW is on the 2nd of July to LAX, with JFK on the 3rd and FLL on the 4th and they now have 6 B787 in service with only !! 5 needed every day.
I'm told they don't need actually need the DoT approval to start these services and can operate up to 2016?? the DoT would have to find that they are not a European airline for the purposes of open skies, an Irish AOC says they are....
Personally i don't think they'll have any problem filling the aircraft, making money will be a bigger challenge of course.
Lets revisit this in a months time
Norwegian are guilty of being naive in thinking that the B787 would be just like another B738 out of the box, fuel it up and off you go and had this company been a stand alone company it would have been bust by now, even as part of the Norwegian group it has negatively impacted the bottom line, attracted a lot of bad press and diverted management resource away from the bread and butter operation.
Will it work? well it appears to be doing so in Scandinavia despite the bad press, the UK market hasn't had anything like the press coverage on Norwegian that it has in it traditional home market.
The first long haul flight from LGW is on the 2nd of July to LAX, with JFK on the 3rd and FLL on the 4th and they now have 6 B787 in service with only !! 5 needed every day.
I'm told they don't need actually need the DoT approval to start these services and can operate up to 2016?? the DoT would have to find that they are not a European airline for the purposes of open skies, an Irish AOC says they are....
Personally i don't think they'll have any problem filling the aircraft, making money will be a bigger challenge of course.
Lets revisit this in a months time
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Loved the way you advertised the schedule in your last post, almost as if you were on the payroll 
I have no doubt they will fill the seats on summer, less so in winter. The UK has had cut throat competition for years on the pond, not so in the Nordics. The current operation is only likely to be of interest to leisure travellers, the only thing we disagree on here, is that losing lower yield economy might not be the threat to BA and VS you are suggesting.
I have no doubt they will fill the seats on summer, less so in winter. The UK has had cut throat competition for years on the pond, not so in the Nordics. The current operation is only likely to be of interest to leisure travellers, the only thing we disagree on here, is that losing lower yield economy might not be the threat to BA and VS you are suggesting.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fairdealfrank.
Hmm Easy Jet to LHR... pigs flying more likely. As ever Easy Jet will want to operate from airports for a very very cheap deal.
Doubt if LHR will let them land for next to nothing, the costs to pay for a 3rd runway will probably go up not down.
Nigel
Hmm Easy Jet to LHR... pigs flying more likely. As ever Easy Jet will want to operate from airports for a very very cheap deal.
Doubt if LHR will let them land for next to nothing, the costs to pay for a 3rd runway will probably go up not down.
Nigel
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Age: 63
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do I need to remind you about what is flying over Battersea Power Plant Nigel?
Ryanair did earlier these cheap deals with airports and named the airports with city names that were very misleading.
As LNIDA showed Skipness One Echo, to use the word start is correct since this is a Gatwick thread. Another start will be the scheduled Thomas Cook flights to the JFK and MIA next year - one of the charter converts I referred to. BTW, German Condor has flown such flights for years now (to SEA and LAS from FRA).
Now back to Ryanair and their possible flights across the Atlantic. Mr. O'Leary has earlier this year again mentioned 10€ flights to BOS and JFK. Already today is Ryanair flying leg lengths of over 2,300 nautical miles (like NYO-TFS). A flight DUBlin to BOSton is only 300 nautical miles longer than today's Skavsta (NYO) and TeneriFe South, but this is far from the longest scheduled B738 flight performed by one of the European LCCs. Norwegian's 2,776 nautical miles long OSL-DXB is the longest - and even BOS-MAN would have been 35 nautical miles shorter than OSL-DXB. I don't think MOL will use their regular B738s on flight across the pond, but he did blame Mr. Kjos for buying all the Dreamliners available the next 3-4 years. To me this is a clear indication he and Ryanair is seriously considering flying TATL.
Ryanair did earlier these cheap deals with airports and named the airports with city names that were very misleading.
As LNIDA showed Skipness One Echo, to use the word start is correct since this is a Gatwick thread. Another start will be the scheduled Thomas Cook flights to the JFK and MIA next year - one of the charter converts I referred to. BTW, German Condor has flown such flights for years now (to SEA and LAS from FRA).
Now back to Ryanair and their possible flights across the Atlantic. Mr. O'Leary has earlier this year again mentioned 10€ flights to BOS and JFK. Already today is Ryanair flying leg lengths of over 2,300 nautical miles (like NYO-TFS). A flight DUBlin to BOSton is only 300 nautical miles longer than today's Skavsta (NYO) and TeneriFe South, but this is far from the longest scheduled B738 flight performed by one of the European LCCs. Norwegian's 2,776 nautical miles long OSL-DXB is the longest - and even BOS-MAN would have been 35 nautical miles shorter than OSL-DXB. I don't think MOL will use their regular B738s on flight across the pond, but he did blame Mr. Kjos for buying all the Dreamliners available the next 3-4 years. To me this is a clear indication he and Ryanair is seriously considering flying TATL.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right, he's been saying it for ten years. Wonder why he hasn't done it?
Thomas Cook flying to MIA and JFK is interesting in that the leisure operators want a piece of that pie, JFK from London already has massive capacity dumping in economy but MAN has potential for what is a leisure and charter like operation. Imagine being with FR for seven hours, all that yellow for so long, people endlessly selling to you, no recline on a night flight. People would pay a few quid more to avoid that....
Thomas Cook flying to MIA and JFK is interesting in that the leisure operators want a piece of that pie, JFK from London already has massive capacity dumping in economy but MAN has potential for what is a leisure and charter like operation. Imagine being with FR for seven hours, all that yellow for so long, people endlessly selling to you, no recline on a night flight. People would pay a few quid more to avoid that....
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 8th Jun 2014 at 08:53.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
skipness one echo
I'm not repeat not advertising routes or schedules just pointing out that something very important in LGW history indeed UK aviation history is just over 3 weeks away FFS
Perhaps you'd be more positive if the one off Gumball flights had landed at LGW instead of PIK
This a LGW thread (the clue is in the title) i doubt Norwegian give a toss about your or my views, but an additional dreamliner a day into LGW is news, all the more so given that it is a different business model.
I won't mention the prices, but they are along way from being cheap $99 fairs
Perhaps you'd be more positive if the one off Gumball flights had landed at LGW instead of PIK
This a LGW thread (the clue is in the title) i doubt Norwegian give a toss about your or my views, but an additional dreamliner a day into LGW is news, all the more so given that it is a different business model.
I won't mention the prices, but they are along way from being cheap $99 fairs
something very important in LGW history indeed UK aviation history is just over 3 weeks away
Important for LGW ? Yes. Without doubt an interesting and important addition to their route portfolio.
But important in the history of UK aviation ? Hardly. The UK/North Atlantic has seen many new players over the years. Some made quite a success of it for a while. Many then disappeared. A very few actually survived and made it long term. Right now the phrase "small fish, big pond" comes to mind. And the pond in this case is full of rather large sharks, who will be watching with interest for any sign of invading their territory.
I wish NO every success, but maybe we should wait a few years before nominating them for a place in UK aviation history.
Important for LGW ? Yes. Without doubt an interesting and important addition to their route portfolio.
But important in the history of UK aviation ? Hardly. The UK/North Atlantic has seen many new players over the years. Some made quite a success of it for a while. Many then disappeared. A very few actually survived and made it long term. Right now the phrase "small fish, big pond" comes to mind. And the pond in this case is full of rather large sharks, who will be watching with interest for any sign of invading their territory.
I wish NO every success, but maybe we should wait a few years before nominating them for a place in UK aviation history.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle NI
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thing is if Norge make a go of it how long before the likes of easyJet Ryanair & South West enter the fray?
I think the segmentation if thats the right word is now so blurred, easy jet are a million miles away from their roots, pay for bags at BA LGW who'd have thought it?
Then you have the 73Max with an 8+ hour range, the world is changing fast
I think the segmentation if thats the right word is now so blurred, easy jet are a million miles away from their roots, pay for bags at BA LGW who'd have thought it?
Then you have the 73Max with an 8+ hour range, the world is changing fast
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Age: 63
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tend to agree with you Longhu, we have wait years to see if this is important for the UK aviation history. What we will see from July though is a new price range on tickets across the Atlantic. As an example if you fly out on the first Norwegian flight to LAX and return four days later you will pay £300 less than on BA flights in Economy on the exact same dates (with the Norwegian the Plus package is included in the price). With BA you will fly with their new A380 and of course Norwegian fly the smaller B787, but both carriers rely on British engineering for their jet engines.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason Ryanair and easyJet haven't tried it is that it adds substantial costs to the business. I suspect easyJet is now at the limit of what they can do as a loco without their cost base markedly rising. If your B73H does six legs per day you have six loads of passengers to sell to, one or two legs long haul with passengers asleep does not drive the same revenue. Norwegian can sell £300 less than BA to LA on selected days in summer is fine if you want to fly from your local at LGW direct to LAX, and it will do well if the start up calamity with the B787 doesn't go on and on. Laker used to serve this same market with DC10s up to 1981, LGW-JFK, MIA, LAX once they had the Series 30, via Bangor on the Series 10. If they do well enough, I have little doubt BA might shuffle another B777 to Gatters and try and spoil things, for everyone I might add.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And fuel cost proportion rises with distance so cost advantage of locos narrows.
And I wonder how well the Skavsta, Beauvais, Hahn strategy would work for the very locos on the other side of the pond. Stansted to New York (Providence)? You probably need to be landing at hubs with a decent range of onward connections.
Then there's the frequent flyer points, the fare and purpose mix and the fares down the back of the big boys' planes.
Quite a few barriers to be overcome. Extremely interesting to see how Norwegian gets on.
And I wonder how well the Skavsta, Beauvais, Hahn strategy would work for the very locos on the other side of the pond. Stansted to New York (Providence)? You probably need to be landing at hubs with a decent range of onward connections.
Then there's the frequent flyer points, the fare and purpose mix and the fares down the back of the big boys' planes.
Quite a few barriers to be overcome. Extremely interesting to see how Norwegian gets on.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am flying on EZY out of LGW (N) tomorrow. I had a text this morning from EZY suggesting I get to the baggage drop '2 - 2 1/2 hours before departure time in order to avoid congestion'.
There is a message on EZY website :
Does anyone know what is going on? Nothing on their website to indicate a problem, it's not school holidays/bank holiday/halfterm or anything.
There is a message on EZY website :
Due to congestion at London Gatwick this weekend we request that you arrive at the check-in and bag drop area no more than 2.5 hours before your flight is due to depart. If you arrive before this time you will not be permitted to join the queue to drop off your bag. We would appreciate your patience and assistance, this will help to reduce congestion in the terminal and will make your experience easier.
It possibly means - please do not turn up 4 hours early because we don't want you and your bags clogging up the little space there is in the terminal and you'll get bored of shopping after 2 hours.
Last edited by davidjohnson6; 20th Jun 2014 at 17:21.