GATWICK
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ballymena
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just been reading a link on the Man thread to a story on Cathy(CX). They are quoted in the article as saying that they could use the A350 to re-open the Lgw - HKG route.
With the arrival of the B787, the A350 plus much lower oil prices, does the economics of long haul out of Lgw have a different take now?i.e. much more positive
TB
With the arrival of the B787, the A350 plus much lower oil prices, does the economics of long haul out of Lgw have a different take now?i.e. much more positive
TB
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: London
Posts: 837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Emirates can make LGW work then why not Cathay with the A350? They could make Hong Kong a gateway for the Far East and beyond in a similar way that Emirates does through Dubai. With more efficient operating costs, the A350 could be the perfect plane for allowing Cathay (and maybe others) back. Perhaps the future of long haul at Gatwick looks brighter than before?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southampton
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wallp
With regards to your comment regarding Long Haul from LGW, I am sure one consistent individual on here will shoot you down immediately regarding that comment but I am with you on that one.
Let's wait and see how long it takes him to have another negative dig at LGW.
With regards to your comment regarding Long Haul from LGW, I am sure one consistent individual on here will shoot you down immediately regarding that comment but I am with you on that one.
Let's wait and see how long it takes him to have another negative dig at LGW.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canberra you need to focus on the topics being discussed and refrain from personal comments against other posters with whom you disagree. These forums are not the place for personal attacks. Thank you.
V
V
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: London
Posts: 837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi canberra97, it seems Cathay Pacific have clearly identified Gatwick as a destination for their new A350 fleet so they obviously feel it can work with a modern, efficient aircraft type.
It seems entirely feasible that Hong Kong could become a successful destination from Gatwick and hopefully the A350 and 787 will create more long haul opportunities. Seems to be working ok for Norwegian so let's hope it's just the start
davidjohnson6, I can't remember where Westjet were planning to fly to from Gatwick? Could the Air Canada Rouge announcement have put them off?
It seems entirely feasible that Hong Kong could become a successful destination from Gatwick and hopefully the A350 and 787 will create more long haul opportunities. Seems to be working ok for Norwegian so let's hope it's just the start
davidjohnson6, I can't remember where Westjet were planning to fly to from Gatwick? Could the Air Canada Rouge announcement have put them off?
Last edited by wallp; 26th Aug 2015 at 22:08.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://twitter.com/airlineroute/sta...23889499439104
Do we have any more than "potential new route survey"?
Did they do a survey? What were the results?
It's not so much that LGW will suddenly work on an A350, it's how LGW functions in relation to LHR. Look at Vietnam who are about to use B787-9s to London having gotten out of Gatwick before taking delivery. Emirates are not a good analogy for anyone, they're in a different league, so saying "LGW works for EK why won't it work for XYZ?" isn't a persuasive argument IMHO. Since LGW can't persuade QR to relaunch and given I would expect to see QR and EY in place before anyone old school like CX comes back, this seems unlikely. Remember CX are placed at the higher end / premium section of long haul. Can we honestly say this is a likely LGW airline, especially given their parent, Air China walked away from here as soon as they could get another LHR slot?
Kick me all you like for being negative and "anti-Gatwick" (even though about 1/3 of all my flying is from there), I just see the whole gig as being froth and marketing fluff. Revenue management would look at LGW as being lower yielding and lacking on site premium lounge facilities to compare to Cathay's own lounge at LHR. Hence the likely audience would be students and tourists in Economy, just as Air China and Korean Air found out. Now if someone said it was Dragonair......... (joke)
Do we have any more than "potential new route survey"?
Did they do a survey? What were the results?
It's not so much that LGW will suddenly work on an A350, it's how LGW functions in relation to LHR. Look at Vietnam who are about to use B787-9s to London having gotten out of Gatwick before taking delivery. Emirates are not a good analogy for anyone, they're in a different league, so saying "LGW works for EK why won't it work for XYZ?" isn't a persuasive argument IMHO. Since LGW can't persuade QR to relaunch and given I would expect to see QR and EY in place before anyone old school like CX comes back, this seems unlikely. Remember CX are placed at the higher end / premium section of long haul. Can we honestly say this is a likely LGW airline, especially given their parent, Air China walked away from here as soon as they could get another LHR slot?
Kick me all you like for being negative and "anti-Gatwick" (even though about 1/3 of all my flying is from there), I just see the whole gig as being froth and marketing fluff. Revenue management would look at LGW as being lower yielding and lacking on site premium lounge facilities to compare to Cathay's own lounge at LHR. Hence the likely audience would be students and tourists in Economy, just as Air China and Korean Air found out. Now if someone said it was Dragonair......... (joke)
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 26th Aug 2015 at 21:52.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ballymena
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipness
Re Vietnam Airlines, they have not seen a large increase in pax numbers since the move to Lhr, per CAA stats. So why would they suddenly have a very different type of pax using them because they are using Lhr as opposed to Lgw? I bet most of the pax on their flights live around Greater London, so could just as easily used Lgw as Lhr. What and where is the gain for Vietnam Airlines? Who are these passengers that would not use the airline that offered the only direct service to Vietnam, from Lgw, but would suddenly use it as it now goes from Lhr? A large increase in connection pax, but from where?
Secondly, I am sure CX are very well aware of the many weaknesses of Lgw. With that in mind, why are they even bothering considering Lgw? They have used Lgw before and no doubt, have access to all the commercial info that is crucial. Why do you think they are even bothering considering Lgw again?
TB
Re Vietnam Airlines, they have not seen a large increase in pax numbers since the move to Lhr, per CAA stats. So why would they suddenly have a very different type of pax using them because they are using Lhr as opposed to Lgw? I bet most of the pax on their flights live around Greater London, so could just as easily used Lgw as Lhr. What and where is the gain for Vietnam Airlines? Who are these passengers that would not use the airline that offered the only direct service to Vietnam, from Lgw, but would suddenly use it as it now goes from Lhr? A large increase in connection pax, but from where?
Secondly, I am sure CX are very well aware of the many weaknesses of Lgw. With that in mind, why are they even bothering considering Lgw? They have used Lgw before and no doubt, have access to all the commercial info that is crucial. Why do you think they are even bothering considering Lgw again?
TB
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: cornwall, uk
Posts: 1,573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure that if CX did come to LGW it would be from the south terminal and that the route would carry a BA codeshare and plenty of BA passengers.
Equally I suspect that CX would use whatever new loinge facilities BA end up with in the north to south move.
cs
Equally I suspect that CX would use whatever new loinge facilities BA end up with in the north to south move.
cs
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What and where is the gain for Vietnam Airlines? Who are these passengers that would not use the airline that offered the only direct service to Vietnam, from Lgw, but would suddenly use it as it now goes from Lhr? A large increase in connection pax, but from where?
They have used Lgw before and no doubt, have access to all the commercial info that is crucial. Why do you think they are even bothering considering Lgw again?
Also, as I posted above, it says "potential survey". I am curious
1) Did they survey?
2) What were the results?
If the A350 can change the game then bring it on, however it's the same generation as the B787 and only loco Norwegian and good old Thomson is using them to LGW. Vietnam could have stayed at LGW and introduced the B789 from there remember. I wish you were right btw, I rather do.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Norwegian Long Haul Expansion
Interesting interview with Bjorn Kjos here: Big Interview: Norwegian sets out strategy to make low-cost long-haul work - www.travelweekly.co.uk
Interestingly it mentions halfway down the page that 2 more 787's will be based at Gatwick next year, and also that New York could potentially go double daily at some point.
Factoring in the 4 weekly flights to Boston there is still up to 10 weekly flights potentially unaccounted for.
Interestingly it mentions halfway down the page that 2 more 787's will be based at Gatwick next year, and also that New York could potentially go double daily at some point.
Factoring in the 4 weekly flights to Boston there is still up to 10 weekly flights potentially unaccounted for.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: London
Posts: 837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
interesting that the article very much talks of long haul feeding short haul and vice versa so something of a Norwegian hub looks to be developing at Gatwick which is fantastic.
Let's hope they continue to thrive and grow. It will be interesting to see where they go next with long-haul - perhaps looking to the Far East?
Let's hope they continue to thrive and grow. It will be interesting to see where they go next with long-haul - perhaps looking to the Far East?
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: England
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I reckon they'll go for the long haul holiday markets more such as Male and Mauritius, more Thailand options as these are only served 1x weekly during season if I'm correct currently by BA and Thomson.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Age: 63
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adfly, you are thinking too traditional with saying there 10 flights left. Below is the working week of the one 787 based at LGW from May 2016, with the first flight Monday afternoon.
LGW-BOS-OSL-BOS-LGW-BOS-CPH-BOS-LGW-BOS-OSL-BOS-LGW-BOS-LGW
This gives 4 weekly LGW-BOS, 2 weekly OSL-BOS and 1 weekly CPH-BOS. The same aircraft may not be used the full week; swaps may well be done at OSL, CPH or LGW since other 787s will be on the ground at the same time at these airports. Looking at crew scheduling; LGW based crews may well end up flying LGW-BOS-CPH-JFK-LGW.
Now to new destinations. As long as US *** don't give a lisence to NAI (the Irish subsidiary of Norwegian), 787s need to continue fly on the Norwegian AOC NLH. And since Norway is not part of that many open skies agreements - only one and that is the EU-US - we will only see new US destinations from LGW for now. Sadly the American airlines don't understand an approval of NAI will lead to less competition on flights between Europe and USA. For an US approved NAI other parts of the world will open up - other parts with open skies agreements with EU or even bilaterals with single EU countries can be possible.
Why does Norwegian 787s only fly from the three Scandinavian capitals to BKK and not from LGW? Most traffic agreements with Thailand are bilateral. Historically the three Scandinavian countries was seen as one part in a bilateral agreement due to SAS, and that's why the Norwegian registered NLH can fly to BKK from ARN, CPH and OSL.
Today's US3 - ME3 "war" and some European legacy carriers' (read Lufthansa Group) dissatisfaction with unfair competion from ME3, we may well end up with only strict bilaterals in the future. This will destroy the environment for the ME3, but also the environment for carriers like Norwegian. What this will lead to at LGW I don't know, but up the road and to the left there is an airport that rely heavily on open skies.
LGW-BOS-OSL-BOS-LGW-BOS-CPH-BOS-LGW-BOS-OSL-BOS-LGW-BOS-LGW
This gives 4 weekly LGW-BOS, 2 weekly OSL-BOS and 1 weekly CPH-BOS. The same aircraft may not be used the full week; swaps may well be done at OSL, CPH or LGW since other 787s will be on the ground at the same time at these airports. Looking at crew scheduling; LGW based crews may well end up flying LGW-BOS-CPH-JFK-LGW.
Now to new destinations. As long as US *** don't give a lisence to NAI (the Irish subsidiary of Norwegian), 787s need to continue fly on the Norwegian AOC NLH. And since Norway is not part of that many open skies agreements - only one and that is the EU-US - we will only see new US destinations from LGW for now. Sadly the American airlines don't understand an approval of NAI will lead to less competition on flights between Europe and USA. For an US approved NAI other parts of the world will open up - other parts with open skies agreements with EU or even bilaterals with single EU countries can be possible.
Why does Norwegian 787s only fly from the three Scandinavian capitals to BKK and not from LGW? Most traffic agreements with Thailand are bilateral. Historically the three Scandinavian countries was seen as one part in a bilateral agreement due to SAS, and that's why the Norwegian registered NLH can fly to BKK from ARN, CPH and OSL.
Today's US3 - ME3 "war" and some European legacy carriers' (read Lufthansa Group) dissatisfaction with unfair competion from ME3, we may well end up with only strict bilaterals in the future. This will destroy the environment for the ME3, but also the environment for carriers like Norwegian. What this will lead to at LGW I don't know, but up the road and to the left there is an airport that rely heavily on open skies.
Sadly the American airlines don't understand an approval of NAI will lead to less competition on flights between Europe and USA. For an US approved NAI other parts of the world will open up - other parts with open skies agreements with EU or even bilaterals with single EU countries can be possible.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This chap seems a little different. There have major problems in starting up and they have few friends in the necessary places. He's talking about a major shift in his own business model as well as minimising the real regulatory issues.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I assume Skipness was referring to Bjorn Kjos and comparing him to the likes of Freddie Laker.
LN-KGL - My use of the word 'potentially' was suggesting that the situation you have shown could affect that number. Of course there are further complications when you consider that an OSL/ARN/CPH based will most likely operate some of the LGW rotations. I guess we will have to wait and see.
Interesting comments about the bilateral's, I assume that means LGW-BKK is off the cards for now? As I have mentioned before I would think the most likely other new routes would be something like 3 weekly to BWI and OAK and possibly some frequency increases to some of the existing routes on top of this. All speculation, of course.
LN-KGL - My use of the word 'potentially' was suggesting that the situation you have shown could affect that number. Of course there are further complications when you consider that an OSL/ARN/CPH based will most likely operate some of the LGW rotations. I guess we will have to wait and see.
Interesting comments about the bilateral's, I assume that means LGW-BKK is off the cards for now? As I have mentioned before I would think the most likely other new routes would be something like 3 weekly to BWI and OAK and possibly some frequency increases to some of the existing routes on top of this. All speculation, of course.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Age: 63
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We may well see a long short combination for the second LGW based 787 to the two airports you mention adfly, but for Mr. Kjos the use of the belly space is getting more and more important. This is why OSL did get 2 weekly flights to BOS and CPH only one - we are talking about freight of fresh farmed Norwegian salmon to the New England market. This is also why OSL will get 4 weekly SAS flights to MIA from autumn 2016 and CPH will only get 3 weekly.
Clearly it is not only the passenger basis that determines where new capacity will be inserted; well-paid cargo too will play a vital role in the future.
Clearly it is not only the passenger basis that determines where new capacity will be inserted; well-paid cargo too will play a vital role in the future.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, I suppose it is easy to forget the difference cargo can make on long haul flights. Do you have any idea of Norwegian's plans for the other two 789's due next year, are both going to new bases (ORY/MAD/BCN have been mentioned), being used to expand the Nordic bases or a combination of the two? Sorry for the slight drift off topic!