GATWICK
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Article here calling for LGW to add a second runway and improve rail access - from engineering perspective:
Should Gatwick become London's hub? | Blogs | New Civil Engineer"
Non-suscribers won't be able to see the article.
Of course LGW needs a second runway, it's nearly as full as LHR, but LHR needs a third more urgently.
A planning agreement prohibits LGW expansion before 2019, a government with an anti-business and anti-enterprise agenda prohibits LHR expansion.
Have to say that rail access to/from Brighton, Croydon and London is pretty good as is access north of London on the East Midlands main line.
Should Gatwick become London's hub? | Blogs | New Civil Engineer"
Non-suscribers won't be able to see the article.
Of course LGW needs a second runway, it's nearly as full as LHR, but LHR needs a third more urgently.
A planning agreement prohibits LGW expansion before 2019, a government with an anti-business and anti-enterprise agenda prohibits LHR expansion.
Have to say that rail access to/from Brighton, Croydon and London is pretty good as is access north of London on the East Midlands main line.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 20th May 2012 at 21:13.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course LGW needs a second runway
In other news, who is operating the Air Nigeria service from Lagos? They don't appear to have B763s but that's what's timetabled.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 20th May 2012 at 22:00.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Much more bang for the buck and the economy at LHR."
Agree 100%, did comment that LHR needs a third rwy more urgently than LGW needs a second!
Agree 100%, did comment that LHR needs a third rwy more urgently than LGW needs a second!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ballymena
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't buy this everything needs to be at Lhr thing. Yes that is probably first option for most airlines, including ones that really don't need to be at Lhr. But Lhr is full and will not have room for many years, if ever. So airlines now have 2 options mainly, don't bother or go to Lgw. I am working on the basis that Lgw wins out over Stn. After the takeover of BMi by BA, there will be no further big redistribution of slots at Lhr again, short of a 3rd runway. So whilst airlines might want to go to Lhr, they will not be able to as there is no room, something we all agree on. They are now being forced to use Lgw in a way they have never been before, and as more start to use Lgw, so it will change. I find it hard to believe that many airlines, if they cannot use Lhr, will turn down the chance to serve London because they can only get into Lgw. Lgw now has the chance to create a snowball effect, as more new carriers come to Lgw it will be easier to sell to other new carriers.
With a second runway meaning the only growth option for airlines in London, Lgw could become as successful as Lhr in many respects.
TB
With a second runway meaning the only growth option for airlines in London, Lgw could become as successful as Lhr in many respects.
TB
TrueBlue - I very much doubt Gatwick will become as successful as Heathrow, because of what is know as the 'network effect'. Virtually every airline at Heathrow will accept connecting passengers from a sizeable proportion of other airlines. The largest carrier at Gatwick, namely Easyjet, along with a number of other Gatwick based airlines, does not accept connecting passengers, and thus the benefit of the wide range of desitinations in the network is significantly diminished.
Until the acceptance of connecting passengers at Gatwick increases significantly, it will remain an O&D airport, instead of a hub like Heathrow.
Until the acceptance of connecting passengers at Gatwick increases significantly, it will remain an O&D airport, instead of a hub like Heathrow.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "I don't buy this everything needs to be at Lhr thing. Yes that is probably first option for most airlines, including ones that really don't need to be at Lhr."
Which airlines don't really need to be there, True Blue?
Would say it's the other way around. Many small UK carriers need to be there but are excluded because of high airport charges for small aircraft and prohibitive slot costs.
Quote: "I am working on the basis that Lgw wins out over Stn."
Definitely, STN is not even on the horizon!
Quote: "After the takeover of BMi by BA, there will be no further big redistribution of slots at Lhr again, short of a 3rd runway. So whilst airlines might want to go to Lhr, they will not be able to as there is no room, something we all agree on."
Tragic isn't it! There will be the usual leasing and sub-leasing of slots or rejigging within alliances, etc..
Quote: "TrueBlue - I very much doubt Gatwick will become as successful as Heathrow, because of what is know as the 'network effect'. Virtually every airline at Heathrow will accept connecting passengers from a sizeable proportion of other airlines."
Also known as the "honeypot"!
Quote: "The largest carrier at Gatwick, namely Easyjet, along with a number of other Gatwick based airlines, does not accept connecting passengers, and thus the benefit of the wide range of desitinations in the network is significantly diminished.
Until the acceptance of connecting passengers at Gatwick increases significantly, it will remain an O&D airport, instead of a hub like Heathrow"
Exactly, davidjohnson6, that is the point! You've summarised it nicely!
Which airlines don't really need to be there, True Blue?
Would say it's the other way around. Many small UK carriers need to be there but are excluded because of high airport charges for small aircraft and prohibitive slot costs.
Quote: "I am working on the basis that Lgw wins out over Stn."
Definitely, STN is not even on the horizon!
Quote: "After the takeover of BMi by BA, there will be no further big redistribution of slots at Lhr again, short of a 3rd runway. So whilst airlines might want to go to Lhr, they will not be able to as there is no room, something we all agree on."
Tragic isn't it! There will be the usual leasing and sub-leasing of slots or rejigging within alliances, etc..
Quote: "TrueBlue - I very much doubt Gatwick will become as successful as Heathrow, because of what is know as the 'network effect'. Virtually every airline at Heathrow will accept connecting passengers from a sizeable proportion of other airlines."
Also known as the "honeypot"!
Quote: "The largest carrier at Gatwick, namely Easyjet, along with a number of other Gatwick based airlines, does not accept connecting passengers, and thus the benefit of the wide range of desitinations in the network is significantly diminished.
Until the acceptance of connecting passengers at Gatwick increases significantly, it will remain an O&D airport, instead of a hub like Heathrow"
Exactly, davidjohnson6, that is the point! You've summarised it nicely!
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 21st May 2012 at 00:30.
S1E
Air Nigeria I think are crewed by Egyptair using leased? A330 aircraft-thats what shows up on Radar 24
The livery is apparently Air Nigerias -have not seen one yet, was too cloudy
Air Nigeria I think are crewed by Egyptair using leased? A330 aircraft-thats what shows up on Radar 24
The livery is apparently Air Nigerias -have not seen one yet, was too cloudy
Last edited by Charley B; 21st May 2012 at 07:29.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Until the acceptance of connecting passengers at Gatwick increases significantly, it will remain an O&D airport, instead of a hub like Heathrow.
As there is no realistic chance of expansion at LHR in the near future, LHR is not really a threat to LGW's expansion either, as new there are two main scenarios for new LH routes to/from London:
1) They go to LGW anyway - as with new routes to HAN, SGN, HKG, PEK, ICN and so on.
2) Slots get juggled and they go to LHR, meaning there is some demand still displaced to LGW.
Over time, there is more and more latent demand for connections to be provided - but LGW would not offer the range or the frequency that LHR does.
However, there are other players besides BA who could offer connections, most notably BE, who are chummy both with Oneworld through their BA part parentage and with Skyteam through their arrangements with AF.
So it is not a question of which airport is going to be the main hub, as that isn't on the agenda at the moment. It is a question of whether or not LGW can act as a hub facility in some way - and the answer is clearly yes.
PS - I managed to read the article, might be a browser / cookies issue but if they are going to play silly like that I'll just paste the whole thing in.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[Note: I am not connected to NCE, I happened to find the article as I was searching]
18 May, 2012
While the South East airport capacity debate centres on a Heathrow third runway versus Boris Island in the Thames Estuary, Gatwick is coolly making an understated case for the next new runway to head its way.
Services there are growing, customer satisfaction is high and the new owners, led by Global Infrastructure Partners, have money to invest. With no serious plans for an estuary airport on the table, no committed politicians prepared to back a Heathrow third runway and with the clock rapidly now ticking towards 2019 – when an agreement with the local community not to build a second runway at Gatwick expires – it is far from beyond the realms of possibility that the much-vaunted UK hub airport status could shift south to Sussex.
Yes, today, it seems unlikely. Gatwick has just one runway and is a classic point-to-point airport and few airlines use it as a hub to transfer passengers around the world. But consider this: it is already UK’s second largest airport and the busiest single-runway airport in the world.
In addition it now serves more than 200 destinations in 90 countries for around 34M passengers a year on short and long-haul services. Only this month Air China launched its first non-stop service from Gatwick to Beijing. And significantly its owners – a group of international investment funds, of which Global Infrastructure Partners is the largest shareholder – are feeling punchy.
“Gatwick not only has the capacity to grow to serve 40M passengers by 2020 but also has the ability to serve London just as effectively as Heathrow – and do so for less than half the cost,” says Gatwick Airport chief commercial officer Guy Stephenson. “Air China’s decision to expand this route from Gatwick sends a strong message that Gatwick is competing.”
Stephenson knows that growth at his airport can be catered for with just one runway up to 2020. But after that, he needs more capacity. What chance that he will get it?
Stephenson is unsurprisingly sceptical of the Thames Estuary plan and doubtful of the chances of Heathrow getting its much sought after third runway – despite the growing pressure from big business and the airlines for government to chance its stance.
Both schemes are getting more and more vociferous in their lobbying and their efforts are attracting more and more attention.
Prime minister David Cameron told an audience of construction industry bosses at the ICE in March that the government was mindful of the need for more capacity in the South East. In the same week his chancellor George Osborne said it was time to “confront” the lack of airport capacity in south east England and committed transport secretary Justine Greening to setting out options later this summer. But both were insistent that this capacity would not come at Heathrow. Instead, they pointed towards proposals for a hub airport in the estuary, a proposal backed by recently re-elected London mayor Boris Johnson but utterly derided by airlines and business. And while Greening’s study won’t report until the summer, what alternatives – other than Gatwick – are there?
Consultant Parsons Brinckerhoff is currently carrying out a study for the recently formed South East Local Enterprise Partnership looking at ways to “squeeze” as much capacity as possible from existing major airports — while balancing air space design constraints, investment costs and surface access needs. The proposals could offer some wriggle room.
Because while Heathrow is virtually at capacity and by 2020 Gatwick will be too, Stansted and Luton have space. The killer question is how to use that spare capacity at “point to point” airports like Gatwick and Stansted in a way that supports business’ and airlines desire for London Heathrow to retain its “hub” reputation.
It’s not easy; but there is a way. Last year the Department for Transport is understood to have examined – and rejected – the idea of a high speed airside rail link between Heathrow and Gatwick. The theory of connecting up London’s two biggest airports by a 15 minute link that keeps transferring passengers airside is good, but the practicality, especially after Heathrow owner BAA was forced to sell Gatwick, is less so.
Any plans to better connect Stansted to either Heathrow or Gatwick are hardly easy either, especially with the future ownership of Stansted uncertain – BAA lost its appeal against a Competition Commission order to sell in February, although it is appealing that decision. It continues to argue that Heathrow and Stansted are different types of airport, serving different types of customer and therefore owning both is not anti-competitive.
That continued uncertainty is not helpful. Regardless, plans for a better Stansted to Gatwick link are gaining traction. Dubbed Brighton Main Line (BML) 2, promoters claim the idea borne out of a campaign to upgrade the Uckfield line near Brighton is worthy of serious consideration.
Key to it is a new direct link between Brighton and the Uckfield line achieved by means of a new 2km long tunnel through the South Downs. This relatively small infrastructure upgrade would unlock a second route from Brighton to London, permit the dedicated central London to Gatwick Express rail services to be reinstated, and offer Gatwick fast, direct trains to Canary Wharf Crossrail. These trains would not terminate there but continue on to Stratford and London Stansted.
Network Rail certainly accepts that the existing BML that serves Gatwick cannot cope with demand, and Gatwick’s owners are pushing hard for an upgrade.
They commissioned consultant Arup to look at how its future growth could be served and last month released its findings – chiefly that the BML needs serious upgrading between Gatwick and London.
Enhancing the airports’ rail links is critical: The number of people travelling between Gatwick airport and London by rail could increase by 30% in eight years and the number of non-air passengers travelling on the same services could grow by 29%.
Whether BML2 fits the bill has not yet been examined, although its promoters are keen: “It is a detailed and carefully thought through response to the increasing urgency to provide far greater capacity between major locations in the South East, but primarily London, Croydon, Gatwick, Brighton, the Sussex coast, Tonbridge and West Kent,” they say.
The suggestion is that the programme could be reasonably spread – with design complete and planning approval obtained by 2014 and construction complete by 2020; by which time a second runway at Gatwick could – in theory – be in operation. So is it really fanciful to suggest that a linked-up Gatwick and Stansted, with three runways between them, could be a serious contender against Heathrow? We will know soon enough; seven years is no time at all in transport planning.
18 May, 2012
While the South East airport capacity debate centres on a Heathrow third runway versus Boris Island in the Thames Estuary, Gatwick is coolly making an understated case for the next new runway to head its way.
Services there are growing, customer satisfaction is high and the new owners, led by Global Infrastructure Partners, have money to invest. With no serious plans for an estuary airport on the table, no committed politicians prepared to back a Heathrow third runway and with the clock rapidly now ticking towards 2019 – when an agreement with the local community not to build a second runway at Gatwick expires – it is far from beyond the realms of possibility that the much-vaunted UK hub airport status could shift south to Sussex.
Yes, today, it seems unlikely. Gatwick has just one runway and is a classic point-to-point airport and few airlines use it as a hub to transfer passengers around the world. But consider this: it is already UK’s second largest airport and the busiest single-runway airport in the world.
In addition it now serves more than 200 destinations in 90 countries for around 34M passengers a year on short and long-haul services. Only this month Air China launched its first non-stop service from Gatwick to Beijing. And significantly its owners – a group of international investment funds, of which Global Infrastructure Partners is the largest shareholder – are feeling punchy.
“Gatwick not only has the capacity to grow to serve 40M passengers by 2020 but also has the ability to serve London just as effectively as Heathrow – and do so for less than half the cost,” says Gatwick Airport chief commercial officer Guy Stephenson. “Air China’s decision to expand this route from Gatwick sends a strong message that Gatwick is competing.”
Stephenson knows that growth at his airport can be catered for with just one runway up to 2020. But after that, he needs more capacity. What chance that he will get it?
Stephenson is unsurprisingly sceptical of the Thames Estuary plan and doubtful of the chances of Heathrow getting its much sought after third runway – despite the growing pressure from big business and the airlines for government to chance its stance.
Both schemes are getting more and more vociferous in their lobbying and their efforts are attracting more and more attention.
Prime minister David Cameron told an audience of construction industry bosses at the ICE in March that the government was mindful of the need for more capacity in the South East. In the same week his chancellor George Osborne said it was time to “confront” the lack of airport capacity in south east England and committed transport secretary Justine Greening to setting out options later this summer. But both were insistent that this capacity would not come at Heathrow. Instead, they pointed towards proposals for a hub airport in the estuary, a proposal backed by recently re-elected London mayor Boris Johnson but utterly derided by airlines and business. And while Greening’s study won’t report until the summer, what alternatives – other than Gatwick – are there?
Consultant Parsons Brinckerhoff is currently carrying out a study for the recently formed South East Local Enterprise Partnership looking at ways to “squeeze” as much capacity as possible from existing major airports — while balancing air space design constraints, investment costs and surface access needs. The proposals could offer some wriggle room.
Because while Heathrow is virtually at capacity and by 2020 Gatwick will be too, Stansted and Luton have space. The killer question is how to use that spare capacity at “point to point” airports like Gatwick and Stansted in a way that supports business’ and airlines desire for London Heathrow to retain its “hub” reputation.
It’s not easy; but there is a way. Last year the Department for Transport is understood to have examined – and rejected – the idea of a high speed airside rail link between Heathrow and Gatwick. The theory of connecting up London’s two biggest airports by a 15 minute link that keeps transferring passengers airside is good, but the practicality, especially after Heathrow owner BAA was forced to sell Gatwick, is less so.
Any plans to better connect Stansted to either Heathrow or Gatwick are hardly easy either, especially with the future ownership of Stansted uncertain – BAA lost its appeal against a Competition Commission order to sell in February, although it is appealing that decision. It continues to argue that Heathrow and Stansted are different types of airport, serving different types of customer and therefore owning both is not anti-competitive.
That continued uncertainty is not helpful. Regardless, plans for a better Stansted to Gatwick link are gaining traction. Dubbed Brighton Main Line (BML) 2, promoters claim the idea borne out of a campaign to upgrade the Uckfield line near Brighton is worthy of serious consideration.
Key to it is a new direct link between Brighton and the Uckfield line achieved by means of a new 2km long tunnel through the South Downs. This relatively small infrastructure upgrade would unlock a second route from Brighton to London, permit the dedicated central London to Gatwick Express rail services to be reinstated, and offer Gatwick fast, direct trains to Canary Wharf Crossrail. These trains would not terminate there but continue on to Stratford and London Stansted.
Network Rail certainly accepts that the existing BML that serves Gatwick cannot cope with demand, and Gatwick’s owners are pushing hard for an upgrade.
They commissioned consultant Arup to look at how its future growth could be served and last month released its findings – chiefly that the BML needs serious upgrading between Gatwick and London.
Enhancing the airports’ rail links is critical: The number of people travelling between Gatwick airport and London by rail could increase by 30% in eight years and the number of non-air passengers travelling on the same services could grow by 29%.
Whether BML2 fits the bill has not yet been examined, although its promoters are keen: “It is a detailed and carefully thought through response to the increasing urgency to provide far greater capacity between major locations in the South East, but primarily London, Croydon, Gatwick, Brighton, the Sussex coast, Tonbridge and West Kent,” they say.
The suggestion is that the programme could be reasonably spread – with design complete and planning approval obtained by 2014 and construction complete by 2020; by which time a second runway at Gatwick could – in theory – be in operation. So is it really fanciful to suggest that a linked-up Gatwick and Stansted, with three runways between them, could be a serious contender against Heathrow? We will know soon enough; seven years is no time at all in transport planning.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a lot of money being spent at Gatwick, a Hell of a lot. I saw two guys employed to sweep the dust from the roof of the Transit in the North Terminal overnight. Now I like that sort of thing but it made me think in this climate it was a little extravagant? Then I got to the South Terminal and walked into the gents. I actually physically stopped and briefly wondered if I had wandered into the First Class area. Each has a private type urinal complete with its' own wash basin and hand dryer. The cubicles are comfortably huge. Now I know they're investing, but it made me think how in the name of God they're ever going to get some of this investmet back. The airport looks awesome, it's never been this new or shiny (in the main!), however the nagging doubt hit that GIP always aim to sell before too long and the sheer amount of TLC is in stark contrast to most of the rest of UK Airports. They really are trying to match T5 and the new T2 at LHR as much as possible in existing facilities.
I just wonder how much more they think they can charge easyJet for their use?
I just wonder how much more they think they can charge easyJet for their use?
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 22nd May 2012 at 02:04.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Worthing
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears lufthansa are increasing lgw-Frankfurt later in year. Timetable on lgw website lists an extra 2 weekly rotations using germanwings a319 equipment. The current 2 daily rotations will both revert to 737-500 equipment.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting article, jabird, very interesting indeed.
Of course a while back GIP were claiming to have no intentions of building a second runway. It's easy to understand why: loads of hassle, loads of expenditure and loads of time, possibly for nothing. Doubtless they know that the economic benefits of an extra runway are greatest at LHR, and are familiar with the saga of LHR's third rwy: it's off, then it's on, now it's off again, but forever? not neccessarily, who knows?
If they were to get all the approvals and no aggravation from residents (unlikely), and if soon after this LHR does as well (again unlikely, but less so), it's one hell of a risk! In that event, much of LGW's business and potential payback would migrate to LHR, as slots once again become available and affordable. Such migrations have happened before and would almost certainly happen again, and LGW could be left with an underused second rwy and a massive bill.
GIP's first responsibility is possibly to their shareholders, they have to see a return on their investment. Maybe a business's first responsibility should be to customers and staff, but that is a different debate and not for now.
Obviously enterprise involves risks, but calculated risks. This is where the casino banks went wrong, also a different debate and not for now! Chasing after a second runway at LGW could be a risky option until LHR has it's third, if that ever happens.
As for a link to STN, it's irrelevant. The case for STN expansion is even weaker that that for LGW, so it's pointless wasting public money linking the two for the sake of it. Again we're talking about a major publicly funded transport option, something that is not required to expand LHR.
However, that is not say that the new Brighton mainline should not go ahead with a link to Stratford, that will stand or fail on it's own merits as a major improvement to the south-east's rail infrastructure. It is also a very long term consideration, look at the Crossrail example!
With reference to the excellent improvements at LGW mentioned by Skipness One Echo (although the domestic pier at LGW-south was still a disgrace last summer)!
The last line of the post says it all:
Quote: "I just wonder how much more they think they can charge easyJet for their use?"
To which only these words need be added...."and BE".
Of course a while back GIP were claiming to have no intentions of building a second runway. It's easy to understand why: loads of hassle, loads of expenditure and loads of time, possibly for nothing. Doubtless they know that the economic benefits of an extra runway are greatest at LHR, and are familiar with the saga of LHR's third rwy: it's off, then it's on, now it's off again, but forever? not neccessarily, who knows?
If they were to get all the approvals and no aggravation from residents (unlikely), and if soon after this LHR does as well (again unlikely, but less so), it's one hell of a risk! In that event, much of LGW's business and potential payback would migrate to LHR, as slots once again become available and affordable. Such migrations have happened before and would almost certainly happen again, and LGW could be left with an underused second rwy and a massive bill.
GIP's first responsibility is possibly to their shareholders, they have to see a return on their investment. Maybe a business's first responsibility should be to customers and staff, but that is a different debate and not for now.
Obviously enterprise involves risks, but calculated risks. This is where the casino banks went wrong, also a different debate and not for now! Chasing after a second runway at LGW could be a risky option until LHR has it's third, if that ever happens.
As for a link to STN, it's irrelevant. The case for STN expansion is even weaker that that for LGW, so it's pointless wasting public money linking the two for the sake of it. Again we're talking about a major publicly funded transport option, something that is not required to expand LHR.
However, that is not say that the new Brighton mainline should not go ahead with a link to Stratford, that will stand or fail on it's own merits as a major improvement to the south-east's rail infrastructure. It is also a very long term consideration, look at the Crossrail example!
With reference to the excellent improvements at LGW mentioned by Skipness One Echo (although the domestic pier at LGW-south was still a disgrace last summer)!
The last line of the post says it all:
Quote: "I just wonder how much more they think they can charge easyJet for their use?"
To which only these words need be added...."and BE".
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 22nd May 2012 at 18:04.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly agree with you Fairdealfrank although if it weren't for the demands and prejudices of the market in this particular case then an STN link would make everything begin to work rather neatly (although I am in principle a proponent of the free market but let's not open that can of worms). But was your last sentence referring to Flybe or in fact something else?
If it was referring to Flybe, then looking at LGW's charges and actions lately it is hardly as though they are encouraging them to stay. BE is clearly small fry to GIP - hence they certainly don't incentivise the use DH8s (and the E75s are hardly any better)... whilst Flybe is the third largest holder of LGW slots, you can bet that GIP would far rather those (in general) very valuable and well-timed rights went to users of larger aircraft or better still the international carriers who are knocking on Gatwick's door - whilst it is true that LGW is only about 80% full, it is certainly running at capacity during the morning and evening peaks. If Flybe pulled out (hypothetically... obviously it is rather unlikely) then the routes could be replaced in the main by EZY/BA, who are already in competition on a number of routes (eg. BHD, INV, IOM, NTE, JER). For GIP, to some extent they are therefore a waste of space... so perhaps they won't be playing to Flybe's tune and if the latter won't pay the fees then so be it.
If it was referring to Flybe, then looking at LGW's charges and actions lately it is hardly as though they are encouraging them to stay. BE is clearly small fry to GIP - hence they certainly don't incentivise the use DH8s (and the E75s are hardly any better)... whilst Flybe is the third largest holder of LGW slots, you can bet that GIP would far rather those (in general) very valuable and well-timed rights went to users of larger aircraft or better still the international carriers who are knocking on Gatwick's door - whilst it is true that LGW is only about 80% full, it is certainly running at capacity during the morning and evening peaks. If Flybe pulled out (hypothetically... obviously it is rather unlikely) then the routes could be replaced in the main by EZY/BA, who are already in competition on a number of routes (eg. BHD, INV, IOM, NTE, JER). For GIP, to some extent they are therefore a waste of space... so perhaps they won't be playing to Flybe's tune and if the latter won't pay the fees then so be it.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Condecension alert ! Slow down indeed"
Quote: "Was that directed at me? If so, apologies as I didn't mean my post to come across that way."
Quote: "Sorry sorry, been up a day and a half without sleep, I'll take my happy pills now....."
Sorry as well if it was me, but not sure where the condecension was and why we are all saying sorry.
Quote: "Certainly agree with you Fairdealfrank although if it weren't for the demands and prejudices of the market in this particular case then an STN link would make everything begin to work rather neatly (although I am in principle a proponent of the free market but let's not open that can of worms). But was your last sentence referring to Flybe or in fact something else?
If it was referring to Flybe, then looking at LGW's charges and actions lately it is hardly as though they are encouraging them to stay. BE is clearly small fry to GIP - hence they certainly don't incentivise the use DH8s (and the E75s are hardly any better)... whilst Flybe is the third largest holder of LGW slots, you can bet that GIP would far rather those (in general) very valuable and well-timed rights went to users of larger aircraft or better still the international carriers who are knocking on Gatwick's door - whilst it is true that LGW is only about 80% full, it is certainly running at capacity during the morning and evening peaks. If Flybe pulled out (hypothetically... obviously it is rather unlikely) then the routes could be replaced in the main by EZY/BA, who are already in competition on a number of routes (eg. BHD, INV, IOM, NTE, JER). For GIP, to some extent they are therefore a waste of space... so perhaps they won't be playing to Flybe's tune and if the latter won't pay the fees then so be it."
Yes, AERO MAD, indeed it was Flybe, and yes, point taken! Basicly LGW would be following LHR where this sort of thing has happened for years.
Quote: "Was that directed at me? If so, apologies as I didn't mean my post to come across that way."
Quote: "Sorry sorry, been up a day and a half without sleep, I'll take my happy pills now....."
Sorry as well if it was me, but not sure where the condecension was and why we are all saying sorry.
Quote: "Certainly agree with you Fairdealfrank although if it weren't for the demands and prejudices of the market in this particular case then an STN link would make everything begin to work rather neatly (although I am in principle a proponent of the free market but let's not open that can of worms). But was your last sentence referring to Flybe or in fact something else?
If it was referring to Flybe, then looking at LGW's charges and actions lately it is hardly as though they are encouraging them to stay. BE is clearly small fry to GIP - hence they certainly don't incentivise the use DH8s (and the E75s are hardly any better)... whilst Flybe is the third largest holder of LGW slots, you can bet that GIP would far rather those (in general) very valuable and well-timed rights went to users of larger aircraft or better still the international carriers who are knocking on Gatwick's door - whilst it is true that LGW is only about 80% full, it is certainly running at capacity during the morning and evening peaks. If Flybe pulled out (hypothetically... obviously it is rather unlikely) then the routes could be replaced in the main by EZY/BA, who are already in competition on a number of routes (eg. BHD, INV, IOM, NTE, JER). For GIP, to some extent they are therefore a waste of space... so perhaps they won't be playing to Flybe's tune and if the latter won't pay the fees then so be it."
Yes, AERO MAD, indeed it was Flybe, and yes, point taken! Basicly LGW would be following LHR where this sort of thing has happened for years.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 22nd May 2012 at 20:12.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ballymena
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I refer to post 1137 from S1E. Can I also state now that this is in no way any criticism towards S1E.
I find the comments very interesting and are a commentary on how many in the UK now think. We accept really poor standards here and when an organisation tries to stand out, we immediately start to question the wisdom of what they are doing.
I have often compared Lhr/Lgw in the past to Hkg and Sin. Arriving back from Hkg/Sin, the first thing that always struck me was how dirty our airports were compared to the two I have mentioned. Arriving at these 2 airports is , for many, their first impression of the UK and a good impression they get, dirt, rubbish, just awful. I can only assume that a major part of the problem in the past was that BAA was not prepared to pay for enough cleaners, nor were they interested in checking the quality of the work.
Now we have Lgw making a major effort to change this aspect of airports. What they are trying to do is what we should want, expect. Lgw should be supported for the efforts that they are making at an airport that was, for years, neglected. Why should we not want what Lgw are now trying to provide? If it can be done at Hkg/Sin, why should we not expect the same here? I expect it and I applaud lgw for the efforts they are making. And they can improve more, I would love to take the Chief Exec on a walk through domestic arrivals in the North terminal and show him what I see.
Show your support for an airport trying to make a difference and refuse the awful standards we see in most aspects of our daily lives.
TB
I find the comments very interesting and are a commentary on how many in the UK now think. We accept really poor standards here and when an organisation tries to stand out, we immediately start to question the wisdom of what they are doing.
I have often compared Lhr/Lgw in the past to Hkg and Sin. Arriving back from Hkg/Sin, the first thing that always struck me was how dirty our airports were compared to the two I have mentioned. Arriving at these 2 airports is , for many, their first impression of the UK and a good impression they get, dirt, rubbish, just awful. I can only assume that a major part of the problem in the past was that BAA was not prepared to pay for enough cleaners, nor were they interested in checking the quality of the work.
Now we have Lgw making a major effort to change this aspect of airports. What they are trying to do is what we should want, expect. Lgw should be supported for the efforts that they are making at an airport that was, for years, neglected. Why should we not want what Lgw are now trying to provide? If it can be done at Hkg/Sin, why should we not expect the same here? I expect it and I applaud lgw for the efforts they are making. And they can improve more, I would love to take the Chief Exec on a walk through domestic arrivals in the North terminal and show him what I see.
Show your support for an airport trying to make a difference and refuse the awful standards we see in most aspects of our daily lives.
TB