GATWICK
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember BFS101 that FR had to limit the number of passengers because of the runway length at BHD and that would have effected yields.
Whilst STN is indeed my favourite airport, that doesn't mean that I want every carrier to serve it or move from elsewhere, but I do think STN is in need for more domestic traffic. It would of course be sad to see BE leave LGW as that too is a great airport, but in a different way.
However, I don't think BE are competitive enough to compete directly with the likes of BA and EZY at LGW (especially since the charging structure at LGW already puts BE in a less competiteive position). LGW want bigger planes to maximise the efficiency of it's runway and that means higher charges for BE's smaller Dash 8 and Embraer aircraft. In recent years, BE have been cutting back in LGW and losing their market share in London as a whole as other carriers have been growing their domestic traffic (those carriers being BA and EZY).
STN has more capacity for growth, less direct competition (in most cases, none at all), an underserved domestic route network and BE would not be disadvantaged by paying higher charges than its rivals. For those who say FR is the problem, Rubbish! FR fly ONE domestic route from STN and that's to Derry. There would be virtually nill competition between BE and FR.
Whilst STN is indeed my favourite airport, that doesn't mean that I want every carrier to serve it or move from elsewhere, but I do think STN is in need for more domestic traffic. It would of course be sad to see BE leave LGW as that too is a great airport, but in a different way.
However, I don't think BE are competitive enough to compete directly with the likes of BA and EZY at LGW (especially since the charging structure at LGW already puts BE in a less competiteive position). LGW want bigger planes to maximise the efficiency of it's runway and that means higher charges for BE's smaller Dash 8 and Embraer aircraft. In recent years, BE have been cutting back in LGW and losing their market share in London as a whole as other carriers have been growing their domestic traffic (those carriers being BA and EZY).
STN has more capacity for growth, less direct competition (in most cases, none at all), an underserved domestic route network and BE would not be disadvantaged by paying higher charges than its rivals. For those who say FR is the problem, Rubbish! FR fly ONE domestic route from STN and that's to Derry. There would be virtually nill competition between BE and FR.
Last edited by FRatSTN; 13th Apr 2013 at 09:57.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STN has major capacity for growth mainly because the market chooses not to use it. Only the locos have made a go of it and even EZY have downsized. BE need to carry way more full fare business traffic to turn a profit than people think. They sit between EZY and T3 in that respect. By all means they could use STN, all that would happen is that EZY and GR would ramp up and steal the existing LGW market. There is little evidence to suggest the market would be loyal and troop to Essex, some might but BE would be carving a whole new niche for itself at an airport with lower yields but admittedly lower costs.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fraSTN
Business passengers just don't want to travel to the sticks ,thats why American Airlines failed twice, and others like SAS likewise. Thats the bottom line problem for STN Im afraid. Only TK have been a success.
Unless the Govt forces large full airlines into STN they won't switch from LHR.Even then likely they wouldn't get the top end passengers,who will use other airlines out of LHR.
The next problem is the alliances..
What does the Govt do.. say to One World you can stay at LHR but Star Alliance airlines have to go to STN..utterly crazy, as they would just connect via another Euro Hub instead.
Nigel
Business passengers just don't want to travel to the sticks ,thats why American Airlines failed twice, and others like SAS likewise. Thats the bottom line problem for STN Im afraid. Only TK have been a success.
Unless the Govt forces large full airlines into STN they won't switch from LHR.Even then likely they wouldn't get the top end passengers,who will use other airlines out of LHR.
The next problem is the alliances..
What does the Govt do.. say to One World you can stay at LHR but Star Alliance airlines have to go to STN..utterly crazy, as they would just connect via another Euro Hub instead.
Nigel
FlyBe should perhaps consider a shift to Stansted. BHD, INV, IOM, NCL and NQY are all not served from Stansted, all of which (I'm not so sure on INV) have been served from Stansted in the past
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FRAstn,
Well if STN is to massively expand as the Govt have intimated it needs money now that the bail outs from LHR full fare airlines reaped by BAA have ran out.
Easy and Ryan Air are not going to bring you much money in, so thats 90% of STN current flights catered for.
So where does it come from..Freight yes STN does quite well, but under the MAG group now will probably be drip fed new freight flts as sure MAN will now get first shout.
MAG are not going to throw money at STN for the likes of a 2nd runway (as the Govt and Boris hope) unless it brings in lots of dosh from big full fare airlines .
Oh and your right Fly Be are far more low cost that full fare !
Nigel
Well if STN is to massively expand as the Govt have intimated it needs money now that the bail outs from LHR full fare airlines reaped by BAA have ran out.
Easy and Ryan Air are not going to bring you much money in, so thats 90% of STN current flights catered for.
So where does it come from..Freight yes STN does quite well, but under the MAG group now will probably be drip fed new freight flts as sure MAN will now get first shout.
MAG are not going to throw money at STN for the likes of a 2nd runway (as the Govt and Boris hope) unless it brings in lots of dosh from big full fare airlines .
Oh and your right Fly Be are far more low cost that full fare !
Nigel
MAG are not going to throw money at STN for the likes of a 2nd runway (as the Govt and Boris hope) unless it brings in lots of dosh from big full fare airlines .
You're absolutely right, putting national infrastructure, such as airports, and the railways into private hands ensures that the government has limited strategic control over it's development. However that is an ideological decision that was put in train by a certain "late" prime minister and her government - and subsequent governments have done nothing to change that model.
That said, MAG is hardly a private company, more a quasi independent arm of local government in the Northwest. One of the few "nationalised companies" left in UK.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airlines "forced" to use STN
Forget about airlines being "forced" to use STN instead of LHR.
First, in a private sector and deregulated industry, the government has no right and no business to determine who goes where, and years of court cases and litigation would render any such attempts futile. To enforce this policy, a certain amount of public ownership would be necessary, and there is no political appetite for this.
Second, airlines at LHR are there because of the available connectivity and premium business. This is how they make their money (pax down the back are the icing on the cake). These are not, and never will be, available at STN. Carriers denied access to LHR will go to where these are available: AMS, CDG and FRA.
It is as simple as that, and it is not just STN, It applies equally to LGW, airports in other parts of the UK, and to any proposed estuary airport.
First, in a private sector and deregulated industry, the government has no right and no business to determine who goes where, and years of court cases and litigation would render any such attempts futile. To enforce this policy, a certain amount of public ownership would be necessary, and there is no political appetite for this.
Second, airlines at LHR are there because of the available connectivity and premium business. This is how they make their money (pax down the back are the icing on the cake). These are not, and never will be, available at STN. Carriers denied access to LHR will go to where these are available: AMS, CDG and FRA.
It is as simple as that, and it is not just STN, It applies equally to LGW, airports in other parts of the UK, and to any proposed estuary airport.
Can I just say that having used LGW recently, how pleasant the experience was. Everyone was polite [OK-so Pret staff are not employed by the airport, but you get my drift] and the security person was most apologetic when he asked if he could check my hand-luggage.
Given that I am in the fortunate position of choosing which UK airport to use, LGW came out as a preferred choice on this visit.
Given that I am in the fortunate position of choosing which UK airport to use, LGW came out as a preferred choice on this visit.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ballymena
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FRatStn wrote"With BHD being substantially more convenient for pratically anybody in Belfast, I think a lot of people, if not the majority would still prefer going from BHD to LHR or LGW rather than travel out to BFS to get into STN, LTN or SEN if they were heading more to the north or east of London."
FR, if the above is true and you seem to be great supporter of this idea that everyone wants to use Bhd, then why
1. Are all of Ezy first flights to London area airports tomorrow morning full ex Bfs, yet the 2 flights ex Bhd to Lgw still have seats? All these pax have a free choice to book out of Bhd yet still choose not to.
2. Since November, all these pax to Lgw who would prefer to use Bhd still use Bfs. Ezy have maintained their pax numbers. There has been a large increase in capacity out of Bhd, but only an increase of about 12k pax per month in numbers. So the 2 operators using Bhd to Lgw are now flying with lower load factors and no doubt, yield is poor. Ei has already made the decision to pull their 4th rotation to Lgw from Bhd. Now there is lots of spare capacity out of Bhd, yet the Caa stats show that pax are still using Bfs. Explain please.
Why is it that all the statements that pax would prefer to use Bhd are not supported by the Caa stats? Bhd to Lgw is a really good example to use, lots of seats yet pax still book out of Bfs. Yet we are told they want to use Bhd in preference to Bfs. I look forward to your explanation.
TB
FR, if the above is true and you seem to be great supporter of this idea that everyone wants to use Bhd, then why
1. Are all of Ezy first flights to London area airports tomorrow morning full ex Bfs, yet the 2 flights ex Bhd to Lgw still have seats? All these pax have a free choice to book out of Bhd yet still choose not to.
2. Since November, all these pax to Lgw who would prefer to use Bhd still use Bfs. Ezy have maintained their pax numbers. There has been a large increase in capacity out of Bhd, but only an increase of about 12k pax per month in numbers. So the 2 operators using Bhd to Lgw are now flying with lower load factors and no doubt, yield is poor. Ei has already made the decision to pull their 4th rotation to Lgw from Bhd. Now there is lots of spare capacity out of Bhd, yet the Caa stats show that pax are still using Bfs. Explain please.
Why is it that all the statements that pax would prefer to use Bhd are not supported by the Caa stats? Bhd to Lgw is a really good example to use, lots of seats yet pax still book out of Bfs. Yet we are told they want to use Bhd in preference to Bfs. I look forward to your explanation.
TB
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suspect it's a case of: pay your money and take your choice.
Clearly there is demand for flights from both BHD and BFS to LHR, LGW, LTN, STN and SEN.
Good!
Yes, of course those heading for north and east London may prefer LTN, STN or SEN. It's easier and quicker to get from Belfast to Aldergrove than from Heathrow or Gatwick to the opposite side of London.
Clearly there is demand for flights from both BHD and BFS to LHR, LGW, LTN, STN and SEN.
Good!
Yes, of course those heading for north and east London may prefer LTN, STN or SEN. It's easier and quicker to get from Belfast to Aldergrove than from Heathrow or Gatwick to the opposite side of London.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Korean Air plots return to Gatwick as Vietnam Airlines expands | Buying Business Travel
A seasonal long haul route on sale with four weeks notice after having recently cancelled and rebooked all forward bookings to other carriers and airports?
This is why I never wanted a Korea in aviation....
A seasonal long haul route on sale with four weeks notice after having recently cancelled and rebooked all forward bookings to other carriers and airports?
This is why I never wanted a Korea in aviation....
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southampton
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Zimbabwe
Does anyone know the status of Air Zimbabwe and there planed return to Gatwick on 01st July 2013 as Gatwick Airports wikipedia page doesn't showed them listed anymore.
I did a search regarding any such information but there seems to be no recent updates on the Air Zimbabwe website or else where!
I was rather looking forward to the return of Air Zimbabwe to LGW especially considering they had been a long term airline at the airport and LGW severely lacks routes to the African continent as well as being the only direct flight from the UK to Zimbabwe.
I did a search regarding any such information but there seems to be no recent updates on the Air Zimbabwe website or else where!
I was rather looking forward to the return of Air Zimbabwe to LGW especially considering they had been a long term airline at the airport and LGW severely lacks routes to the African continent as well as being the only direct flight from the UK to Zimbabwe.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Information supplied to the GDSs for Air Zim :
UM 722 ops WED SUN HRE I LGW S 0900 1830 eff 03JUL13 EQP=762
UM 725 ops TUE THU LGW S HRE I 1930 0630+1 eff 01JUL13 EQP=762
Which implies a positioning flight HRE LGW and that it will sit at LGW from 1830 on SUN to 1930 on TUE. Maintenance?
Somehow I don't think this will happen.
UM 722 ops WED SUN HRE I LGW S 0900 1830 eff 03JUL13 EQP=762
UM 725 ops TUE THU LGW S HRE I 1930 0630+1 eff 01JUL13 EQP=762
Which implies a positioning flight HRE LGW and that it will sit at LGW from 1830 on SUN to 1930 on TUE. Maintenance?
Somehow I don't think this will happen.