GATWICK

[few@two]

Wasting its time... Work on the market you have. As you say low cost and leisure...

[davidjohnson6]

few@two - I disagree in part. Heathrow is expensive but it still has plenty of less-than-global airlines. Do (for example) Biman Bangladesh, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan airlines *really* need to pay up for the LHR entry ticket, or could they be persuaded to move to and stay at Gatwick ?

[wallp]

Long Haul

If few@two is right, what new long-haul leisure routes not currently served have potential from Gatwick?

David makes a good point about carriers like Biman. Could Gatwick offer them a deal which would be hard to refuse?

Also, Emirates have made a success of their Dubai route without their Heathrow operation suffering. Is there anything to be learned from them?

[True Blue]

Is it not also a possibility that when an airline starts from Lgw, when also using Lhr, that Lgw might have more appeal than they thought and Lhr suffers more than they thought? At some point, if the market keeps growing and there is no more room at Lhr and they want to continue to expand, then they will have to accept Lgw or another entry point. I cannot believe that BA, VS and EK would have kept their routes so long if they didn't make money. Before then, we had American carriers for years at Lgw, were they losing money all the time they were at Lgw. ( know all about the restrictions they faced etc).

[Skipness One Echo]

Do (for example) Biman Bangladesh, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan airlines *really* need to pay up for the LHR entry ticket, or could they be persuaded to move to and stay at Gatwick ?

Snobbery? Turkmenistan have two flights a week off peak, Tue/Sat at LHR, Uzbekistan Tue/Fri. It makes no odds to anyone whether they use LHR or LGW, the market prefers LHR so LHR it seems to be. Even Azerbaijan moved out of LGW to LHR as soon as they could. There is zero connectivity at LGW and loads at LHR. Biman would see it as a loss of face I suspect, besides one could not accuse them of seeking a commercial return (!) btw Biman, Turkmenistan and Uzbek put together are only seven flights a week. LGW is clutching at straws in long haul legacy now if that's the strategy.

The US carriers at LGW were not loss making, far from it, however moving the same aircraft to LHR increases connectivity and drives up revenue at the pointy end.
BA and VS moved everything except sun holiday routes to LHR, the remainder seem to do just fine at LGW.

[wallp]

Long haul

So if the US carriers were making money at LGW when they were there, why couldnt new long haul routes that aren't principally to leisure based destinations eg Florida & the Carribean, also work & be profitable for carriers?

I accept the issue of connectivity which doesn't exist at Gatwick as it does at Heathrow but take a route like London to New York - whilst a lot of connecting passengers will use such a route, there must also be a large number of passengers who fly the route on a point to point basis whether its for business or leisure? Assuming that's the case why can't a route like that also work at Gatwick?

If passengers can accept Gatwick for short haul travel, why not for more long haul too, or is the need to offer a connection hub so fundamental to success?

[Skipness One Echo]

I accept the issue of connectivity which doesn't exist at Gatwick as it does at Heathrow but take a route like London to New York - whilst a lot of connecting passengers will use such a route, there must also be a large number of passengers who fly the route on a point to point basis whether its for business or leisure? Assuming that's the case why can't a route like that also work at Gatwick?

It's worth a google and a search as it's been asked a million times. Basically Big Airways Corps wants to fly from London to New York. They will make £x at LGW and £(x+y) from LHR with connectivity. Aircraft are the most mobile of assets, so why are you flying from LGW when you can make more at LHR? It can work at LGW, no issues except the rather pressing one that your competitors are making more at LHR as they will have more premium passengers. Hence LGW is LHR's waiting room. BA's LGW-JFK was understood to be their worst performing New York rotation, as LHR filled from the front back, LGW filled from the back first, hence the yield was much lower. So guess what, they took all the LGW-JFK customers with them when they moved the route to LHR and added another LHR-JFK. Win-Win. It matters not one whit how big LGW's catchment area is, as if you force them to use LHR, they will come, and you can make more money. It's certainly not the case that no one has ever tried, BA have tried LGW-JFK at least three times, VS have flown LGW-JFK and LGW-EWR, DL flew LGW-JFK, and I think American may also have had a go in the past.

Roughly speaking...

[True Blue]

But what happens when Lhr is unable to take any more?

TB

[davidjohnson6]

When LHR is full then a big airline that flies transatlantic approaches a minor airline on the verge of going bust, offers the small airline a pile of cash to hand over the desired slots, small airline moves to Gatwick / Luton and delays bankruptcy for another year or more and big airline gets to fly LHR-JFK

Have a google on "slot trading heathrow" for details

[cornishsimon]

Did BA fly the LGW-NYC route with a 3 or 4 class 772 ?

cs

[yotty]

Then a new runway and terminal gets built!

[LNIDA]

Well judging by the early success that Norwegian are enjoying from OSL & ARN with their long haul flights despite ongoing problems with the Dreamliner I suspect that at some stage next year NAS LH will base units in LGW and of course unlike other LoCo airline they do connect with their other flights via hubs.

Norwegian is much closer to a legacy carrier then other product offering from EZY & FR and the recent raft of route announcements from Scandinavia give an insight to what LGW might expect next year

The load factor on many routes from LGW have been very impressive for Norwegian who are still relatively unknown in the UK market and a warm UK Summer will not have helped, I guess the big problem for NAS at LGW will be lack of slots at sensible times, but the prospect of long haul flights is a lever that EZY don't have right now.

LGW will prove to have been a very smart move for NAS the question is who are they taking business off, I think this winter it will Monarch in the Canary who suffer, but a lot of leakage from LHR on the Scandi routes 4 times daily to OSL now, not bad for LGW

[Skipness One Echo]

I doubt they'll succeed but they'll probably have a go. I think we covered a dozen reasons why LON-US would be a very difficult nut to crack but given they're paying peanuts to their staff to fly their new B787s I suspect they'll manage a profit if they do. It's not even the same company, it's a "subsidiary" with foreign low paid crew.

It was a four class BA B772, anticipating your next question, will they try a fourth time with a three class B772 or an ex LHR B788? Probably....

[cornishsimon]

I was just curious as to the offering.

But answer me something skipness, why the hostility ? Is it intended or just the way you come across ?

What makes your opinion right and anyone who doesn't agree with you wrong ?


cs

[Skipness One Echo]

But answer me something skipness, why the hostility ? Is it intended or just the way you come across ?

Ahhh sorry I see what you mean, I wasn't getting at you, I was getting at BA. They will try again, give them a few years until the burning pain subsides and someone internally will make a business case as to why LGW-JFK will work. The thing I find really frustrating about Gatwick is people often just don't understand why some things will work and others simply won't.

I used to be a LGW fanboy for BA, loved the hub without the hubbub, tis a mere shadow if it's former (loss making!!) self.

What makes your opinion right and anyone who doesn't agree with you wrong ?

It's relatively straightforward to segment what offerings have historically failed at LGW or worked way better at LHR. So when someone says LGW-abc will work well, it's important to point to what happened last time someone had a crack at it. If nothing has changed in the market, only a numpty should expect a different result. GIP have spent a FORTUNE on Gatwick and yet the demographic and yields remain stubbornly where they've traditionally been. Anybody who genuinely believes long haul growth at Gatters is coming has had theit eyes shut for the last thirty years. The recent roll call is hardly triumphant, Korean and Air China both lasted under one year, Vietnam is still waiting on a LHR opportunity. If it ain't sun or a beach and an outbound white skinned demographic, it won't work at Gatwick. OK that's harsh but seriously, nothings changed, they've even lost what UK connectivity they had left to allow EZY and DY to add more holiday flights. All it needs is the ex LHR BA A319s that are coming (no promised new aircraft remember, they never issued the promised RFP), to change the last four letters of the titles and call it British Airtours. Might as well, and I don't mean that in a bad way.
LGW's future is bright Orange.

[cornishsimon]

Yes the future at LGW is bright orange, sadly.

However the noises coming from BA @ LGW are promising, im hearing suggestions that BA are moving at least 1 A321 to LGW, as well as more A320s and several more A319s.

Yes these will replace the 734s but replacing a 734 with an A321 is quite some replacement.

They are also moving 1 extra 4 class 772 over to Gatwick to increase rotations on existing sunshine routes.

As for NYC ex LGW, never say never. I don't see BA trying it in the next couple of years but eventually as you say they will.

Whats the difference, well BA have significantly reduced costs at Gatters, they could also fly the correct aircraft to NYC, and I do say NYC, that does not have to be JFK, BA do have a decent presence at EWR.

The only people that will know the numbers are those who work for BA, they will know how many people connect LGW-LHR and onward from LHR, with extra flights going to JER when BE pull out I expect the cross London connections to increase, and I suspect that sooner or later BA along with the AA JV will add a flight ex LGW into an AA hub, be that JFK, DFW etc.

Running split operations between LHR & LGW has proven a positive move for LAS as each airport targets a different market, too many people were trying to fly BA and they didn't want to use extra slots on the route so it was perfect for LGW. The same could happen with other routes if extra rotations are needed.

Who knows, but one thing I do know is that BA LGW seems to be on the up, long might it continue, it will be interesting to see the route and fleet make up at LGW for summer 14.



cs

[canberra97]

Cornishman

Skipness always answers like that, very very hostile when ever Gatwick is concerned sure he does make some really valid points at times and I do agree with alot of what he says but generally he does have a point in making HIS point and does not really want to consider other peoples views, you must have read his posts on the forums on Airliners.net they are very similar to those on here regarding LGW.

I put it down to him being Scottish and I have been to 92 countries worldwide but I have never been to Scotland as I assume they are all like him a 'wee' bit arrogant in the way they come across!

Dont worry though I am sure the hostility against LGW will continue in some way as he often says he does like LGW but kicks it down when ever he gets the chance.

I am a big fan of LGW and I have been since I first visited the airport in 1978 and I like to follow the airport and it's development but it frustrates me when I read the negative posts.

Oh I have been wanting to say that for so long so thanks Cornishman for allowing me too get it off my chest

[Skipness One Echo]

Not kicking Gatwick, kicking those blind to learning how things work and seeing long haul, it's always long haul, through rose tinted specs. I'll be willin to bet that BA at LGW will be Vueling in five years. BA's LGW cost base was always low, when they got Dan Air they paid their pilots a pittance. There's no costs left to cut now. They've been cutting costs since 1993 and still not fixed it yet.
Gatwick's amazing, Thomson, easyJet, monarch, Norwegain all doin well on short haul. It does have flaws though, Ryanair can't really make it work and flybe were pretty much forced out. My gripe is that too many get hung up on long haul, particularly BA and the iconic New York route. Concentrate on the 95% good rather than the 5% "glamour". Heavens even Lufthansa axed FRA for the winter on launch, Gatwick has particular strengths but also particular weaknesses. They're worth understanding rather than dreaming of a future long haul hub. Adam Thomson could have told you that.
Btw canberra97 if you think I am wrong, best try some numbers, facts or figures, it beats racial stereotyping most days to be fair.

[wallp]

Long haul

Well I really do hope that Norwegian have a crack at long haul from Gatwick. As has been pointed out already, they can offer connectivity with their short haul network & hopefully the efficiencies of the B788 will increase the chances of profitability & success.

The BA split operation to LAS is an interesting one. It seems to work well. Hopefully in time, we'll see more rotations on this route from LGW. If it can work on this route, perhaps it could on others? My earlier post suggested MIA & I had this sort of split operation in mind as something that might be possible for this and/or other destinations.

Also, Emirates' Dubai route works from LGW alongside their LHR operation. Is that not something others can learn from or are the dynamics of that route unique to them?

[LN-KGL]

Yesterday's truth isn't necessarily a truth for the future. Countless times the British aviation industry have been left behind due to being too preservative.