GATWICK
Garuda are of no great importance in the overall scheme of things, but they are just the latest in a long line of airlines who have abandoned Gatwick for Heathrow. That long list is what demonstrates that the long haul , & the "prestigious name" airlines, much prefer Heathrow. The very fact that this has occurred over the last 40 years is it's own testament to the truth that Heathrow is where these airlines want to be. And, to that effect, Davies got it right.
No one is saying that Gatwick will not expand, or even that it will not attract long haul flights. It might even get another runway one day, if it can overcome the political opposition.
My own favourite IS Gatwick, because it, alone, has the connecting flights to the Channel Islands to go with a great expansion of long haul routes that a 2nd. Runway MIGHT bring. But, I don't kid myself that the big international airlines favour it over Heathrow.
No one is saying that Gatwick will not expand, or even that it will not attract long haul flights. It might even get another runway one day, if it can overcome the political opposition.
My own favourite IS Gatwick, because it, alone, has the connecting flights to the Channel Islands to go with a great expansion of long haul routes that a 2nd. Runway MIGHT bring. But, I don't kid myself that the big international airlines favour it over Heathrow.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The option of using Garuda as a cheap (but rather obscure) way to travel between London and Amsterdam won't be around for much longer it seems.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reports elsewhere of Gatwick-is-the-Heathrow-waiting-room syndrome occurring again.
Garuda is to decouple London and Amsterdam, and move London flights from Gatwick to Heathrow.
The option of using Garuda as a cheap (but rather obscure) way to travel between London and Amsterdam won't be around for much longer it seems.
Garuda is to decouple London and Amsterdam, and move London flights from Gatwick to Heathrow.
The option of using Garuda as a cheap (but rather obscure) way to travel between London and Amsterdam won't be around for much longer it seems.
GA will be able to take advantage of the available premium traffic and connecting pax at LHR, as VN (and many others) already do.
That'll hurt LGW's expansion argument surely.
Despite it having spare capacity now, the market (ie airlines) still prefer the constrained LHR. Did Davies got it right - expanding LHR is the best option?
Despite it having spare capacity now, the market (ie airlines) still prefer the constrained LHR. Did Davies got it right - expanding LHR is the best option?
I've been trying to give a one word answer, but the system won't let me. The answer is, "Yes, Davies did get it right". In my opinion &, apparently, Garuda's !
Garuda are of no great importance in the overall scheme of things, but they are just the latest in a long line of airlines who have abandoned Gatwick for Heathrow. That long list is what demonstrates that the long haul , & the "prestigious name" airlines, much prefer Heathrow. The very fact that this has occurred over the last 40 years is it's own testament to the truth that Heathrow is where these airlines want to be. And, to that effect, Davies got it right.
No one is saying that Gatwick will not expand, or even that it will not attract long haul flights. It might even get another runway one day, if it can overcome the political opposition.
My own favourite IS Gatwick, because it, alone, has the connecting flights to the Channel Islands to go with a great expansion of long haul routes that a 2nd. Runway MIGHT bring. But, I don't kid myself that the big international airlines favour it over Heathrow.
My own favourite IS Gatwick, because it, alone, has the connecting flights to the Channel Islands to go with a great expansion of long haul routes that a 2nd. Runway MIGHT bring. But, I don't kid myself that the big international airlines favour it over Heathrow.
There's nothing wrong with having a second rwy at LGW, provided it is not at the expense of a third at LHR.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Gatwick has hit 40 million PAX! Wow - that was a "decade" sooner than was predicted by some. So where does it go next? ATC at LGW are "the very best" in the world. To have the busiest single runway operation in the world by some margin is testimony to the skill and excellence of the Swanwick and LGW teams, however having spent the summer flying in and out of the airport it is now very clear that it is operating right at the limit of a "safe" operation! "Line up after the landing aircraft and be ready for an immediate", "After landing minimum time on the runway", "reduce to minimum approach speed and be ready for a very late landing clearance" etc, etc not to mention an ever increasing number of go-arounds this summer. Gatwick is now most definitely reaching "FULL"! Yes there are still quieter periods however with the peak periods of arrivals and departures becoming completely saturated there really isn't scope for any more aircraft being based at the airport. With Easyjet and Norwegian "literally - throwing" more aircraft at the airport, it makes you wonder just how much further these annual passenger numbers can go! With an 8% increase over the past year it could easily rise to 45 million within the next couple of years and no airport will turn new traffic away if they can avoid it! That's the equivalent of 90 million out of LHR if you allow for two runways! So currently LGW's need is way ahead of LHR. However it's very clear where all the premium traffic is not to mention all the connecting traffic and it isn't LGW. It's a completely different operation! The government need to make a decision and soon but the reality is that both airports "DESPERATELY" need more capacity, not just from a logical economic point of view but as much for safety reasons! There is only so much traffic these airports can "SAFELY" handle! Ultimately I don't personally think we'll see another single runway in my lifetime let alone two! I don't think the government will ever wake up to the safety implications of so much dithering over decision making over the years! Capacities are being breached every year and are only being breached safely due to the great skills of superb controllers who are being pushed to the very limit of safe operations! And don't "WE" know it!
So Gatwick has hit 40 million PAX! Wow - that was a "decade" sooner than was predicted by some. So where does it go next? ATC at LGW are "the very best" in the world. To have the busiest single runway operation in the world by some margin is testimony to the skill and excellence of the Swanwick and LGW teams, however having spent the summer flying in and out of the airport it is now very clear that it is operating right at the limit of a "safe" operation! "Line up after the landing aircraft and be ready for an immediate", "After landing minimum time on the runway", "reduce to minimum approach speed and be ready for a very late landing clearance" etc, etc not to mention an ever increasing number of go-arounds this summer. Gatwick is now most definitely reaching "FULL"! Yes there are still quieter periods however with the peak periods of arrivals and departures becoming completely saturated there really isn't scope for any more aircraft being based at the airport. With Easyjet and Norwegian "literally - throwing" more aircraft at the airport, it makes you wonder just how much further these annual passenger numbers can go! With an 8% increase over the past year it could easily rise to 45 million within the next couple of years and no airport will turn new traffic away if they can avoid it! That's the equivalent of 90 million out of LHR if you allow for two runways! So currently LGW's need is way ahead of LHR. However it's very clear where all the premium traffic is not to mention all the connecting traffic and it isn't LGW. It's a completely different operation! The government need to make a decision and soon but the reality is that both airports "DESPERATELY" need more capacity, not just from a logical economic point of view but as much for safety reasons! There is only so much traffic these airports can "SAFELY" handle! Ultimately I don't personally think we'll see another single runway in my lifetime let alone two! I don't think the government will ever wake up to the safety implications of so much dithering over decision making over the years! Capacities are being breached every year and are only being breached safely due to the great skills of superb controllers who are being pushed to the very limit of safe operations! And don't "WE" know it!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cape Town
Hopefully end the BA rip off prices
Great holiday destination, exchange rate makes it very cheap for europeans, can we have some flights from MAN please !
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting move, would have expected the airline to be Norwegian, or TCX from MAN. Given VS and SA having recently dropped CPT from LHR I suspect this could do rather well.
In other news it looks as though QR are still considering using LGW to further expand their LON operation.
Qatar Air Mulls Gatwick Route as Heathrow Flight Upgraded to 787 - Bloomberg Business
In other news it looks as though QR are still considering using LGW to further expand their LON operation.
Qatar Air Mulls Gatwick Route as Heathrow Flight Upgraded to 787 - Bloomberg Business
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Botswana
Posts: 890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A second runway at Gatwick and third runway at Heathrow definitely means more room on the ground. Just a quick question though:
Where's the extra airspace going to come from?
Where's the extra airspace going to come from?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brilliant post....LGW and LHR both need an extra runway NOW!
The world's busiest one rwy airport and the world's busiest two rwy airport: not an enviable record and a monument to indecision delay and dither.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: London
Posts: 837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given Emirates' success from LGW it doesn't seem unreasonable that Qatar might also make a go of it, perhaps using a B787?
As for TCX to Cape Town, that sounds like a great route addition. With not great competition on the route, they could do really well. Good luck to them.
I too agree that there's a case for both LGW and LHR to get new runways. It probably will but doesn't have to be an either or.
As for TCX to Cape Town, that sounds like a great route addition. With not great competition on the route, they could do really well. Good luck to them.
I too agree that there's a case for both LGW and LHR to get new runways. It probably will but doesn't have to be an either or.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: cornwall, uk
Posts: 1,573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll say yes CX will return to LGW and that the CX code will be applied to the majority of BA short haul at LGW which will help with feed from those places that BA serve ex Gatters that aren't served at LHR.
cs
cs
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: London
Posts: 837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be great to see CX back at LGW presumably with the A350?
With rumours that QR could also return, perhaps there's an emphasis on trying to get One World members in and as cornishsimon says, offering the BA shorthaul operaion as potential feed for their flights?
With rumours that QR could also return, perhaps there's an emphasis on trying to get One World members in and as cornishsimon says, offering the BA shorthaul operaion as potential feed for their flights?
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would these flights *need* BA feed?
The OneWorld airlines of Qatar, American and Cathay serve Manchester with little feed (cathay has flybe feed, but, I doubt they are getting significant numbers off that).
I suspect the London market in general is what is driving these possible flights more than the desire to have another feed point.
The OneWorld airlines of Qatar, American and Cathay serve Manchester with little feed (cathay has flybe feed, but, I doubt they are getting significant numbers off that).
I suspect the London market in general is what is driving these possible flights more than the desire to have another feed point.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: cornwall, uk
Posts: 1,573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Need ? No
Help ? Probably yes
There are places that BA serve from LGW that don't have connections like this via OW without a LGW-LHR road transfer. The likes of JER so having OW eastbound flights ex LGW would no doubt get some feed from the BA/EI network
cs
Help ? Probably yes
There are places that BA serve from LGW that don't have connections like this via OW without a LGW-LHR road transfer. The likes of JER so having OW eastbound flights ex LGW would no doubt get some feed from the BA/EI network
cs
Cathay Pacific 'to return to London Gatwick with A350' - Business Traveller
Six flights daily into London, they must be printing money.
BA operate a point to point loco leisure model at LGW, there's got to be some reluctance to get back into the hub and spoke mentality that bled money for decades as it will only up the cost base as well as realising the network is pointing the wrong way for anyone going East surely?
Six flights daily into London, they must be printing money.
BA operate a point to point loco leisure model at LGW, there's got to be some reluctance to get back into the hub and spoke mentality that bled money for decades as it will only up the cost base as well as realising the network is pointing the wrong way for anyone going East surely?
