GATWICK
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,793
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wycombe - Signature would welcome more business as long as it does not pull from all their other London Operations. Heavies which usually go to STN?
Don't think LGW owners will be impressed after so much investment.
Don't think LGW owners will be impressed after so much investment.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: London
Posts: 837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Gatwick can't hold on to Vietnam Airlines it does make you wonder if they really can offer a viable offer to attract long haul airlines and passengers? Presumably it won't be too long before Garuda follow them to Heathrow.
Pabely - I think you misunderstood. By "GA" I mean Garuda Indonesia, who recently re-started ops from LGW (to Jakarta, via Amsterdam).
The discussion was about how long it might be before they move up to Heathrow, following the update on Vietnam Airlines (who have been at LGW for a few years) a few posts ago.
The discussion was about how long it might be before they move up to Heathrow, following the update on Vietnam Airlines (who have been at LGW for a few years) a few posts ago.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its becoming more and more apparent that despite the billions that GAL have invested in Gatwick, improving terminal forecourts, parking, hotels, overall passenger facilities like security lanes and even down to things like airside operations etc. that they still have not attracted any sustainable long haul airlines.
Vietnam Airlines has been one of the only long-haul airlines to stick around for several years at LGW, at least longer than others such as Hong Kong for example.
As far as I can see the only return that GAL are currently getting for their enormous investments is an increase in short haul traffic (easyJet and Norwegian) however the long haul side still lacks, despite Norwegian introducing JFK, LAX and FLL.
Vietnam Airlines has been one of the only long-haul airlines to stick around for several years at LGW, at least longer than others such as Hong Kong for example.
As far as I can see the only return that GAL are currently getting for their enormous investments is an increase in short haul traffic (easyJet and Norwegian) however the long haul side still lacks, despite Norwegian introducing JFK, LAX and FLL.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: London
Posts: 837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly it's hard to envisage a significant long haul network at LGW in the future aside from the established leisure routes. If carriers like Vietnam A/L can't be persuaded of the merits of using LGW over LHR, theres little chance of attracting other operators
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Earth
Age: 34
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And yet have still just had their busiest year on record. I think the expanding, profitable short haul network is a little more important than an Asian airline operating an unprofitable route with regularly cancelled/re-timed flights for prestige reasons only.
It failed at LGW and it'll fail at LHR.
It failed at LGW and it'll fail at LHR.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: southern spain
Posts: 1,987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However much spin the bosses at Gatwick put on it the airport has been and always will be the waiting room for Heathrow in terms of long haul scheduled destinations end of. Shudder to think if Heathrow gets a third runway - very very doubtful in my opinion - what would Gatwick look like - no BA for starters?
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR is an hub airport LGW is point to point so long haul into/from LGW will only really work on routes where the vast majority of passengers are departing/arriving at their final destination. Should some like easyJet start long haul then given their huge short haul operation at LGW then it might become an easyJet hub.
Norwegians mini hub at LGW is only one dreamliner so its not statistically significant.
Norwegians mini hub at LGW is only one dreamliner so its not statistically significant.
Given Vietnam Air is a member of Skyteam, their natural European hub is presumably Paris. This is reinforced by the fact France ruled Vietnam as a colony for many years, meaning trade and cultural ties are present along with a large Vietnamese community in France.
It would seem a little perverse for passengers outside the UK or Ireland to choose to connect in London unless said passengers have a love of backtracking. I don't therefore see what Heathrow really adds to Vietnam Airlines that Gatwick cannot provide, apart from higher costs and the magic prestige dust that comes with flying to Heathrow.
Anyone able to counter this opinion ?
It would seem a little perverse for passengers outside the UK or Ireland to choose to connect in London unless said passengers have a love of backtracking. I don't therefore see what Heathrow really adds to Vietnam Airlines that Gatwick cannot provide, apart from higher costs and the magic prestige dust that comes with flying to Heathrow.
Anyone able to counter this opinion ?
Vietnam Airlines is a smaller and currently less known player in the Australia / Europe market. They offer an alternative (and often cheaper) route to the UK from downunder via Vietnam for those who want to venture away from the more well trodden stopover hubs of Singapore, Bangkok, Hong Kong, Dubai etc. Vietnam as a stopover or destination is actually very interesting (and cheap). The service on the aircraft was pretty good too, at least from my limited experience
Maybe VN just feel they will be better placed to compete for this market by being at LHR, where all of their neighbours and competitors are with the exception of (I think) just Garuda. Having lived and worked in the Asia/Pacific region a very long time, I still find most travellers originating from here struggle to name any London airport other than Heathrow.
Maybe VN just feel they will be better placed to compete for this market by being at LHR, where all of their neighbours and competitors are with the exception of (I think) just Garuda. Having lived and worked in the Asia/Pacific region a very long time, I still find most travellers originating from here struggle to name any London airport other than Heathrow.
Last edited by Logohu; 11th Jan 2015 at 11:32. Reason: typo
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GA will be interesting, as they have a long history of ops from LGW (albeit with an enforced break in recent years).
My feeling is that it would make more sense, and be a more valuable use of an LHR slot if they were operating direct to CGK (rather than via AMS as per the current LGW op).
My feeling is that it would make more sense, and be a more valuable use of an LHR slot if they were operating direct to CGK (rather than via AMS as per the current LGW op).
Pabely - I think you misunderstood. By "GA" I mean Garuda Indonesia, who recently re-started ops from LGW (to Jakarta, via Amsterdam).
However much spin the bosses at Gatwick put on it the airport has been and always will be the waiting room for Heathrow in terms of long haul scheduled destinations end of. Shudder to think if Heathrow gets a third runway - very very doubtful in my opinion - what would Gatwick look like - no BA for starters?
Given Vietnam Air is a member of Skyteam, their natural European hub is presumably Paris. This is reinforced by the fact France ruled Vietnam as a colony for many years, meaning trade and cultural ties are present along with a large Vietnamese community in France.
It would seem a little perverse for passengers outside the UK or Ireland to choose to connect in London unless said passengers have a love of backtracking. I don't therefore see what Heathrow really adds to Vietnam Airlines that Gatwick cannot provide, apart from higher costs and the magic prestige dust that comes with flying to Heathrow.
Anyone able to counter this opinion ?
It would seem a little perverse for passengers outside the UK or Ireland to choose to connect in London unless said passengers have a love of backtracking. I don't therefore see what Heathrow really adds to Vietnam Airlines that Gatwick cannot provide, apart from higher costs and the magic prestige dust that comes with flying to Heathrow.
Anyone able to counter this opinion ?
Almost all connections on these carriers involve going the "long way round" via DXB, AUH and DOH.
Check it out on great circle mapper if you think this is wrong.
(2) What LHR offers VN (and others) that LGW cannot are premium pax and the availability of connections. Simple as that.
I am always surprised at the number of connections onto BA domestic and European flights from Heathrow that come from non-OneWorld carriers, there are obviously plenty of off-alliance through fares that are available (as an example, the recent medical case in the press of the nurse who returned from West Africa to Glasgow, Royal Air Maroc to Heathrow and then a BA domestic leg). This routing is just not available through Gatwick.
Sure Gatwick has done well again for passengers, I suspect it's almost entirely driven by the shell-suit lot on Easyjet and Norwegian. Good for them. And Gatwick has managed more than half the number of passengers at Heathrow while only having half the runways, and a fraction of the widebodies. But yes, if a third runway were opened today at Heathrow both BA and Virgin, even for their so-called "leisure" destinations, would be over there tomorrow. There's a very large proportion of higher-fare business traveller, in particular inbound from overseas, who just look for a Heathrow service - want a choice of half a dozen daily departures back home, high-tech customer in the Thames Valley, taxi/chauffeur service to Central London taking less than half a day, etc.
Sure Gatwick has done well again for passengers, I suspect it's almost entirely driven by the shell-suit lot on Easyjet and Norwegian. Good for them. And Gatwick has managed more than half the number of passengers at Heathrow while only having half the runways, and a fraction of the widebodies. But yes, if a third runway were opened today at Heathrow both BA and Virgin, even for their so-called "leisure" destinations, would be over there tomorrow. There's a very large proportion of higher-fare business traveller, in particular inbound from overseas, who just look for a Heathrow service - want a choice of half a dozen daily departures back home, high-tech customer in the Thames Valley, taxi/chauffeur service to Central London taking less than half a day, etc.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am always surprised at the number of connections onto BA domestic and European flights from Heathrow that come from non-OneWorld carriers, there are obviously plenty of off-alliance through fares that are available (as an example, the recent medical case in the press of the nurse who returned from West Africa to Glasgow, Royal Air Maroc to Heathrow and then a BA domestic leg). This routing is just not available through Gatwick.
Sure Gatwick has done well again for passengers, I suspect it's almost entirely driven by the shell-suit lot on Easyjet and Norwegian. Good for them. And Gatwick has managed more than half the number of passengers at Heathrow while only having half the runways, and a fraction of the widebodies.
The number of rwys isn't an issue in this context: Heathrow does better in pax numbers than CDG and FRA, for example, "while only having half the runways".
But yes, if a third runway were opened today at Heathrow both BA and Virgin, even for their so-called "leisure" destinations, would be over there tomorrow.
There's a very large proportion of higher-fare business traveller, in particular inbound from overseas, who just look for a Heathrow service - want a choice of half a dozen daily departures back home, high-tech customer in the Thames Valley, taxi/chauffeur service to Central London taking less than half a day, etc.
We don't want these pax flying in on feeder flights from other European hub airports, or worse still, not bothering at all and just remaining in Europe.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to be a pedant WHBM but while I understand and agree with what you say the example routing of the nurse is in fact one which could be done via LGW since Royal Air Maroc serve it from CMN/RAK and BA fly to Glasgow! 
While it seems quite certain that the mainline/national carriers (except maybe the MEB3 and a few other exceptions like Aer Lingus) prefer Heathrow I'm curious as to how Norwegian will grow at LGW, especially when they start getting their 789's. I've read rumours of the two 788's being upgraded to 789's when they start to arrive plus there has been mentions of them considering OAK and BKK and also that FLL has lagged behind the other routes in terms of loads/yield. Does anyone on here have more of an insight into what DY/DU's plans are for LGW?
While it seems quite certain that the mainline/national carriers (except maybe the MEB3 and a few other exceptions like Aer Lingus) prefer Heathrow I'm curious as to how Norwegian will grow at LGW, especially when they start getting their 789's. I've read rumours of the two 788's being upgraded to 789's when they start to arrive plus there has been mentions of them considering OAK and BKK and also that FLL has lagged behind the other routes in terms of loads/yield. Does anyone on here have more of an insight into what DY/DU's plans are for LGW?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to be a pedant WHBM but while I understand and agree with what you say the example routing of the nurse is in fact one which could be done via LGW since Royal Air Maroc serve it from CMN/RAK and BA fly to Glasgow!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ballymena
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the VN decision to move to Lhr, some points come to mind
1. It is surprising the number of people who do not want to see Lgw have any success in the long haul market. It seems Lhr has a right to this business.
2. The obsession by airlines to operate from Lhr, whether there is a good business reason or not. Not all decisions to operate from Lhr have proved successful either. How many more pax will now use this service because it uses Lhr rather than Lgw who would otherwise not have travelled?
3. I was reading today a comment that Lhr had been talking to VN for years and have a waiting list of 30 airlines. Well would they not be better operating from Lgw than waiting for years?
4. For many years now we have been listening to the fact that Lhr is full, yet it is still able to take airlines from Lgw. When does full actually mean full? I see Agean had obtained slots quickly for a new service from Lhr to Lca!
TB
1. It is surprising the number of people who do not want to see Lgw have any success in the long haul market. It seems Lhr has a right to this business.
2. The obsession by airlines to operate from Lhr, whether there is a good business reason or not. Not all decisions to operate from Lhr have proved successful either. How many more pax will now use this service because it uses Lhr rather than Lgw who would otherwise not have travelled?
3. I was reading today a comment that Lhr had been talking to VN for years and have a waiting list of 30 airlines. Well would they not be better operating from Lgw than waiting for years?
4. For many years now we have been listening to the fact that Lhr is full, yet it is still able to take airlines from Lgw. When does full actually mean full? I see Agean had obtained slots quickly for a new service from Lhr to Lca!
TB