GATWICK
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
spoke hub mini hub call it what you like but my gut instinct is that Norwegian will try the LGW - US market within 12 months, if they can get the right deal from LGW, as for easy jet with 100 aircraft i'm not really sure that there are that many airports you could fly to from LGW to keep a 100 jets on 4 - 6 rotations a day??
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what could happen at LGW
Quote: “So let's suppose for the sake of argument the answer is a second runway at Gatwick. Never mind what the question was!
Roll the film ten years forward. Air traffic growth 3% per annum, so traffic up 40% on today. Big increases in slot values at LHR, the price of not doing R3, converting to a fare premium of say £50 per one way AND a 30 min ATC penalty at LHR relative to LGW. What's going to happen?”
Is a second rwy at LGW really likely to happen without a third at LHR? If so it would be a suicide note to rival Michael Foot’s 1983 Labour party manifesto.
Quote: “1. Some of the minnows at LHR will take the money and run. Some of the destinations on the board at LHR are the consequence of history not economics.”
Run where? AMS? If the “minnows” can’t make LHR work with its large amount of premium business and wealth of connections, they’re hardly going to make it at LGW!
Examples, please, of destinations that are still there because of "history not economics".
Quote: “2. LGW will develop as a weak hub, like MAN. If United, AA, USAir, Delta, SQ etc are willing to serve MAN from their hubs, sooner or later they will serve LGW. Maybe they will choose to do it, maybe someone else will have a go and that will trigger market reactions.”
Why would they go to LGW just because they go to MAN? EY used to, not any more.
Apart from UK carriers such as BA, VS, ZB, BY, etc., (mostly on point to point leisure routes), carriers doing longhaul at Gatwick don’t last in the long term.
Let's be realistic and accept that, as far as longhaul is concerned, LGW is the waiting room and/or overflow for LHR.
Roll the film ten years forward. Air traffic growth 3% per annum, so traffic up 40% on today. Big increases in slot values at LHR, the price of not doing R3, converting to a fare premium of say £50 per one way AND a 30 min ATC penalty at LHR relative to LGW. What's going to happen?”
Is a second rwy at LGW really likely to happen without a third at LHR? If so it would be a suicide note to rival Michael Foot’s 1983 Labour party manifesto.
Quote: “1. Some of the minnows at LHR will take the money and run. Some of the destinations on the board at LHR are the consequence of history not economics.”
Run where? AMS? If the “minnows” can’t make LHR work with its large amount of premium business and wealth of connections, they’re hardly going to make it at LGW!
Examples, please, of destinations that are still there because of "history not economics".
Quote: “2. LGW will develop as a weak hub, like MAN. If United, AA, USAir, Delta, SQ etc are willing to serve MAN from their hubs, sooner or later they will serve LGW. Maybe they will choose to do it, maybe someone else will have a go and that will trigger market reactions.”
Why would they go to LGW just because they go to MAN? EY used to, not any more.
Apart from UK carriers such as BA, VS, ZB, BY, etc., (mostly on point to point leisure routes), carriers doing longhaul at Gatwick don’t last in the long term.
Let's be realistic and accept that, as far as longhaul is concerned, LGW is the waiting room and/or overflow for LHR.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 2nd Oct 2013 at 20:10.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London, UK & Europe
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fairdealfrank
Here is a tip for you, if you want to quote text on the second row when you are replaying the fifteenth icon from left to right is a quote button and just past the text in.
Might make things easier for you!
Here is a tip for you, if you want to quote text on the second row when you are replaying the fifteenth icon from left to right is a quote button and just past the text in.
copied text
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking a hell of a lot closer into the future. Any new ideas about tomorrow when the CAA make their final proposals on charges at Heathrow and Gatwick for the next 5 years?
No doubt both LHR and LGW are not going to be happy because they won't be allowed to charge nearly as much as they would like to, especially LHR.
I don't want to sound daft, but is it wise really for LGW to want to significantly increase charges anyway?
And what about STN? Deferred to next week I believe.
No doubt both LHR and LGW are not going to be happy because they won't be allowed to charge nearly as much as they would like to, especially LHR.
I don't want to sound daft, but is it wise really for LGW to want to significantly increase charges anyway?
And what about STN? Deferred to next week I believe.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
reply to frank
1. If R3 was ruled out by the politicians, I should have thought some version of the 2 plus 2 plus 2 model is favourite. We shall see.
2. If R3 was ruled out, slot prices will increase exponentially at Heathrow. In that situation, carriers will reappraise the value to them relative to the value of trading. That's happened in the past, and there's further scope for it to happen in the future. Might be minnows, might be switches of long haul bucket and spade out of Heathrow by the big boys.
3. Possibly I agree that in the scenario I outlined, Gatwick is the overflow. All I'm saying is that sooner or later market processes will kick in. If capacity rationing drives ticket prices up at Heathrow, traffic will spread out more than otherwise would happen. LNIDA's comment about NAS suggests just one way the process might begin. Again we shall see.
2. If R3 was ruled out, slot prices will increase exponentially at Heathrow. In that situation, carriers will reappraise the value to them relative to the value of trading. That's happened in the past, and there's further scope for it to happen in the future. Might be minnows, might be switches of long haul bucket and spade out of Heathrow by the big boys.
3. Possibly I agree that in the scenario I outlined, Gatwick is the overflow. All I'm saying is that sooner or later market processes will kick in. If capacity rationing drives ticket prices up at Heathrow, traffic will spread out more than otherwise would happen. LNIDA's comment about NAS suggests just one way the process might begin. Again we shall see.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there any long haul bucket and spade at LHR? The "minnows" are often less than commercial and often driven by national pride, they're not first up to move.
Is Malta a "new" route? Wasn't it just suspended recently?
The pedant in me is screaming at the misuse of the word "exponentially". There's not exactly a massive list of airlines I can see making a go of LHR who are not existing operators IMHO.
Is Malta a "new" route? Wasn't it just suspended recently?
The pedant in me is screaming at the misuse of the word "exponentially". There's not exactly a massive list of airlines I can see making a go of LHR who are not existing operators IMHO.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 4th Oct 2013 at 18:15.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fairdealfrank
Here is a tip for you, if you want to quote text on the second row when you are replaying the fifteenth icon from left to right is a quote button and just past the text in.
Here is a tip for you, if you want to quote text on the second row when you are replaying the fifteenth icon from left to right is a quote button and just past the text in.
reply to frank
1. If R3 was ruled out by the politicians, I should have thought some version of the 2 plus 2 plus 2 model is favourite. We shall see.
2. If R3 was ruled out, slot prices will increase exponentially at Heathrow. In that situation, carriers will reappraise the value to them relative to the value of trading. That's happened in the past, and there's further scope for it to happen in the future. Might be minnows, might be switches of long haul bucket and spade out of Heathrow by the big boys.
3. Possibly I agree that in the scenario I outlined, Gatwick is the overflow. All I'm saying is that sooner or later market processes will kick in. If capacity rationing drives ticket prices up at Heathrow, traffic will spread out more than otherwise would happen. LNIDA's comment about NAS suggests just one way the process might begin. Again we shall see.
2. If R3 was ruled out, slot prices will increase exponentially at Heathrow. In that situation, carriers will reappraise the value to them relative to the value of trading. That's happened in the past, and there's further scope for it to happen in the future. Might be minnows, might be switches of long haul bucket and spade out of Heathrow by the big boys.
3. Possibly I agree that in the scenario I outlined, Gatwick is the overflow. All I'm saying is that sooner or later market processes will kick in. If capacity rationing drives ticket prices up at Heathrow, traffic will spread out more than otherwise would happen. LNIDA's comment about NAS suggests just one way the process might begin. Again we shall see.
The "2 plus 2 plus 2 model" would be a disaster, as would a four-rwy STN or a vanity project in the Thames. For the last two, think YMQ!
2. In the event of slot prices rising, it will effect new entrants and existing carriers who wish to increase their LHR offerings.
Those in the first category may well end up avoiding the UK if they can't get the required slots at an acceptable price. Some have tried LGW as an alternative and, in the majority of cases, it hasn't been successful.
Those in the second category will be stuck, but again, apart from the hub carriers BA and VS, it is unlikely they would want the expense of a dual operation for one city.
3. Speculation about a DY LGW-JFK service is irrelevant in this case: DY has never attempted to obtain LHR slots.
As mentioned many times before, movement tends to be from LGW to LHR, not the other way around.
If the status quo at LHR doesn't change (i.e. no third rwy and capacity rationing remaining as it is now) why would this pattern of carrier movement change?
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 4th Oct 2013 at 21:16.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apols Skipness, exponential= cringeworthy.
Bucket and spade-- I was thinking for example Montego Bay. Maybe meant rattle your jewellery.
My answer to Frank's last question is --- if the market is substantially larger in ten years time then in the scenario under discussion, what he calls the waiting room at LGW will be filling up. That does presume plane size growth at LHR doesn't keep pace with demand growth though!
Bucket and spade-- I was thinking for example Montego Bay. Maybe meant rattle your jewellery.
My answer to Frank's last question is --- if the market is substantially larger in ten years time then in the scenario under discussion, what he calls the waiting room at LGW will be filling up. That does presume plane size growth at LHR doesn't keep pace with demand growth though!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My answer to Frank's last question is --- if the market is substantially larger in ten years time then in the scenario under discussion, what he calls the waiting room at LGW will be filling up. That does presume plane size growth at LHR doesn't keep pace with demand growth though
anothertyke, your original scenario was for no third rwy at LHR and a second at LGW, so under your circumstances, the "waiting room" won't fill up, as it would have been substantially enlarged.
Obviously, your original scenario "2+2" or, indeed, the "2+2+2" idea will not resolve the problem of insufficient hub capacity at LHR. In the long term, "4-2-1" or "4-2-2" will be necessary.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least the Davis commission recognise what is blindingly obvious to all, that the SE of England needs more runway capacity sooner rather than later, I think the most likely out come will be a second runway at LGW and a 3rd at LHR.
The BAA submission from LHR looks to be a very grown up piece of work and talks openly about a 4th runway.
I think Boris Island is dead in the water, its too far East, too expensive and too late.
There can only be one hub in the UK and there only 3 choices LHR STN LBI (London Boris Isle) changing hub status means closing LHR.
LGW will never be a hub airport although it may do very well of the new breed of Low cost operators going long haul, if and its a big if Norwegians foray into long haul works others are bound to follow. Of course a 3rd runway at LHR would likely mean BA moving more long haul kit away from LGW
The BAA submission from LHR looks to be a very grown up piece of work and talks openly about a 4th runway.
I think Boris Island is dead in the water, its too far East, too expensive and too late.
There can only be one hub in the UK and there only 3 choices LHR STN LBI (London Boris Isle) changing hub status means closing LHR.
LGW will never be a hub airport although it may do very well of the new breed of Low cost operators going long haul, if and its a big if Norwegians foray into long haul works others are bound to follow. Of course a 3rd runway at LHR would likely mean BA moving more long haul kit away from LGW
From Airline Route update:
ADRIA Resumes London Gatwick Service from mid-May 2014
ADRIA Airways in Summer 2014 season resumes service to London Gatwick, after near 3 years suspension. The Star Alliance member will operate 2 weekly Ljubljana – London Gatwick flights on board Airbus A319, from 17MAY14 to 18OCT14.
JP450 LJU1925 – 2040LGW 319 36
JP451 LGW2120 – 0025+1LJU 319 36
ADRIA Resumes London Gatwick Service from mid-May 2014
ADRIA Airways in Summer 2014 season resumes service to London Gatwick, after near 3 years suspension. The Star Alliance member will operate 2 weekly Ljubljana – London Gatwick flights on board Airbus A319, from 17MAY14 to 18OCT14.
JP450 LJU1925 – 2040LGW 319 36
JP451 LGW2120 – 0025+1LJU 319 36
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Age: 63
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, to name the airline is simple - it has to be Norwegian Air Shuttle with LNIDA contributing. I have heard rumours of more 738 to be based at LGW - six is the number that pops up. Up in North West there is also rumours that local cabin crews has been recruited and they are to be based there. I suspect there will be more visits from the Spanish bases to the UK, and I don't think LGW will be the only UK airport with visits from that direction.
Last edited by LN-KGL; 16th Oct 2013 at 00:01.