GATWICK
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Jersey & London
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
British Airways is to increase flights between Gatwick and Jersey from summer 2014, re-instating the later evening flight that was dropped in March.
This follows Flybe’s announcement that it will exit the route from March 2014and will mean British Airways once again flies six daily flights to Jersey. The timings of flights have also been improved.
A small bit of news for Gatwick but an important and welcome move for Jersey nonetheless. I know the loss of the later evening flight has caused frustration locally, including for me, as has the inconsistent daily timetable.
This follows Flybe’s announcement that it will exit the route from March 2014and will mean British Airways once again flies six daily flights to Jersey. The timings of flights have also been improved.
A small bit of news for Gatwick but an important and welcome move for Jersey nonetheless. I know the loss of the later evening flight has caused frustration locally, including for me, as has the inconsistent daily timetable.
The case for a second runway at London Gatwick Airport
Gatwick's submission last week to the Airports Commission:
http://www.gatwickairport.com/Docume...y19Jul2013.pdf
http://www.gatwickairport.com/Docume...y19Jul2013.pdf
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The case for a second runway at London Gatwick Airport
Interesting document, there was one word that cropped up a great deal in it: "Heathrow".
Their idea of one of the airline alliances shifting from LHR to LGW en masse, clearly isn't going to happen.
The very-very-wide-spaced option for a second parallel rwy is reminiscent of AMS.
It's a fair case if it was intended to be as well LHR expansion, but not convinced that it works instead of LHR expansion.
Their idea of one of the airline alliances shifting from LHR to LGW en masse, clearly isn't going to happen.
The very-very-wide-spaced option for a second parallel rwy is reminiscent of AMS.
It's a fair case if it was intended to be as well LHR expansion, but not convinced that it works instead of LHR expansion.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 23rd Jul 2013 at 21:28.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: england
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Belgrano
The Belgrano being mainly made of glass and steel could be dismantled and rebuilt elsewhere. Gatwick is still stuck with the same problem of having to cross a live runway to get to the southernmost!
Last edited by yotty; 23rd Jul 2013 at 21:54.
Gatwick is still stuck with the same problem of having to cross a live runway to get to the southernmost!
The schematic layouts in the proposal don't show any taxiways, but they do show the airport boundaries being extended to both the east and west as well as to the south.
So it's quite possible that an end-around taxiway could be provided at either or both ends of the current 08/26 to obviate the need for runway crossings.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Age: 63
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You just need to take a closer look at the front cover of the submission. Behind the Beehive and the parking area you will see the new south terminal and between and along the runways you will also a number of satellite piers with access to both runways without crossing them. I presume this artistic illustration shows the third option (largerst separation between the runways).
I presume this artistic illustration shows the third option
The proposal states that:
"We are not yet in a position to conclude the precise design of such a new runway. Considerations include the exact length of the runway, how it would be operated and how the related infrastructure, such as new taxiways, aprons and passenger terminal and surface access connections would be provided."
And I think I'm right in saying that the artist has drawn the taxiway in the foreground too close to the 26 threshold to be usable as an end-around.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Belfast
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alliance shifting?
Fairdealfrank.
I'm not sure you can make such a statement about there being no chance of an alliance shifting.
Not when Mr Walsh threatened exactly that a few weeks ago.
I'm not sure you can make such a statement about there being no chance of an alliance shifting.
Not when Mr Walsh threatened exactly that a few weeks ago.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alliance shifting?
Quote: "Fairdealfrank.
I'm not sure you can make such a statement about there being no chance of an alliance shifting.
Not when Mr Walsh threatened exactly that a few weeks ago."
What they say and what they do are often different.
Remain unconvinced that any of the carriers at LHR would give up on the wealth of connections and interlining/through-ticketing opportunities and the premium business available LHR and nowhere else in the UK. Could only envisaging it happening in the case of a carrier in such dire straits that it has to sell/lease out its LHR slots to survive.
Having paid millions for scarce LHR slots, imagine that many carriers would be loathe to give them up or lease them out to the competition.
The movement tends to be the other way, from LGW to LHR (there's plenty of evidence and examples of this!), so don't see the reverse happening. Don't envisage a carrier doing it, let alone an entire alliance.
Could be completely wrong of course, but the balance of probability must be against.....
I'm not sure you can make such a statement about there being no chance of an alliance shifting.
Not when Mr Walsh threatened exactly that a few weeks ago."
What they say and what they do are often different.
Remain unconvinced that any of the carriers at LHR would give up on the wealth of connections and interlining/through-ticketing opportunities and the premium business available LHR and nowhere else in the UK. Could only envisaging it happening in the case of a carrier in such dire straits that it has to sell/lease out its LHR slots to survive.
Having paid millions for scarce LHR slots, imagine that many carriers would be loathe to give them up or lease them out to the competition.
The movement tends to be the other way, from LGW to LHR (there's plenty of evidence and examples of this!), so don't see the reverse happening. Don't envisage a carrier doing it, let alone an entire alliance.
Could be completely wrong of course, but the balance of probability must be against.....
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 24th Jul 2013 at 16:03.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CaptJ,
One thing to threateN to move another to do it.
Why would they move ,already proved that US airlines for example don't want LGW as they have all fled to LHR driven by the fact Business passengers want to fly from LHR and not commute to LGW..
Long Haul, LGW is mostly used for leisure routes and by airlines that can't get slots into LHR.
Would an alliance risk loosing front end business passengers to other alliances still using t LHR by moving to LGW.they wouldn't get many back.
Nigel
One thing to threateN to move another to do it.
Why would they move ,already proved that US airlines for example don't want LGW as they have all fled to LHR driven by the fact Business passengers want to fly from LHR and not commute to LGW..
Long Haul, LGW is mostly used for leisure routes and by airlines that can't get slots into LHR.
Would an alliance risk loosing front end business passengers to other alliances still using t LHR by moving to LGW.they wouldn't get many back.
Nigel
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Age: 63
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nigel, LGW emphasises that today (2012 numbers) only a bit over 17 million of the passengers flying to London airports are transfer passengers; the rest (118 million) are O&D passengers. With such a vast majority terminating only the best ground transport counts to get to the final destination.
Last edited by LN-KGL; 24th Jul 2013 at 17:06.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would an alliance risk loosing front end business passengers to other alliances still using t LHR by moving to LGW.they wouldn't get many back.
I'm not sure you can make such a statement about there being no chance of an alliance shifting.
Not when Mr Walsh threatened exactly that a few weeks ago.
Not when Mr Walsh threatened exactly that a few weeks ago.
? My bad....The key issue that other airports with a "constellation" of airports don't have a dominant succesful world hub. The only winners in forcing an alliance out of Heathrow would be the lawyers, Lufthansa even suspended LGW-FRA for the winter, as traffic prefers LHR in that market.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 24th Jul 2013 at 20:51.
Some rather strange logic in the Executive Summary:
"Transfer passengers represent only 13% of passengers using London’s airports. The number of routes which supporters of mega hubs argue can be facilitated only with transferring passengers is overstated."
So, if transfer traffic is relatively unimportant, why do airlines fight tooth and nail to get into Heathrow when they could save a fortune on user charges by flying to Gatwick instead ?
"Transfer passengers represent only 13% of passengers using London’s airports. The number of routes which supporters of mega hubs argue can be facilitated only with transferring passengers is overstated."
So, if transfer traffic is relatively unimportant, why do airlines fight tooth and nail to get into Heathrow when they could save a fortune on user charges by flying to Gatwick instead ?
Dave -
Because LHR is better situated within the UK.
Just take a look at the geography. Gatwick road and rail connections are virtually non-existent east-west. Go south 30 miles and you're in the sea. Go north and you hit Congestion Central.
From LHR to the west there is a good motorway to Reading, Swindon, Bristol, Exeter, Cardiff, etc. To the southwest there is good motorway into Surrey, Hampshire, Southampton, etc. Northwest is Chilterns, Oxford, Birmingham by quiet motorway. Within 20 miles north you are on the M1 towards Watford, Luton, MK, Northampton etc. Rail links into Central London are many and quick, and offer a wide variety of destinations.
Forget the hubbing and spoking - it's location, location, location.
Because LHR is better situated within the UK.
Just take a look at the geography. Gatwick road and rail connections are virtually non-existent east-west. Go south 30 miles and you're in the sea. Go north and you hit Congestion Central.
From LHR to the west there is a good motorway to Reading, Swindon, Bristol, Exeter, Cardiff, etc. To the southwest there is good motorway into Surrey, Hampshire, Southampton, etc. Northwest is Chilterns, Oxford, Birmingham by quiet motorway. Within 20 miles north you are on the M1 towards Watford, Luton, MK, Northampton etc. Rail links into Central London are many and quick, and offer a wide variety of destinations.
Forget the hubbing and spoking - it's location, location, location.
Down that way today and drove along A23 on way to Crawley.
Nestle will be p***** off as they just moved into City Place which figure won't exist.
Road Alignment not much of an issue as mostly farmland on left and most of industries that were using area up to Ibis Hotel on RHS at Lowfield Heath have gone via recession or because Land was bought up at Auction a few years ago.
They will straighten A23 to along where Ibis is with no trouble.
Sadly Flight Tavern will cease to exist, food average but spent more than a few evenings and afternoons there waiting for people.
Motorway will have better exit which not such a bad idea and create thousands of jobs but then again as Crawley seems to be always close to full employment that is an interesting equation.
Based on initial designs I wonder whether its a satellite terminal or a full blown new terminal utilising both runways.
It will be interesting to see.
Nestle will be p***** off as they just moved into City Place which figure won't exist.
Road Alignment not much of an issue as mostly farmland on left and most of industries that were using area up to Ibis Hotel on RHS at Lowfield Heath have gone via recession or because Land was bought up at Auction a few years ago.
They will straighten A23 to along where Ibis is with no trouble.
Sadly Flight Tavern will cease to exist, food average but spent more than a few evenings and afternoons there waiting for people.
Motorway will have better exit which not such a bad idea and create thousands of jobs but then again as Crawley seems to be always close to full employment that is an interesting equation.
Based on initial designs I wonder whether its a satellite terminal or a full blown new terminal utilising both runways.
It will be interesting to see.
Forget the hubbing and spoking - it's location, location, location.
But that's rather different from saying that transfer traffic is irrelevant to the majority of airlines serving Heathrow. It clearly isn't.