GATWICK
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skippy
Your missing the point here, of course you need to have a return ticket unless your a US citizen, but it doesn't need to be with BA or one of their partner airlines, you might be going on from the USA point of arrival to another country, you might be flying back to another European country that BA does not serve.
Most of the legacy airlines do the same thing, this will have to change, many people across Europe now fly one way with one carrier and the return with another, one airline might only offer an early morning flight back but another might offer a return latter in the day.
Most of the legacy airlines do the same thing, this will have to change, many people across Europe now fly one way with one carrier and the return with another, one airline might only offer an early morning flight back but another might offer a return latter in the day.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand your logic but the truth is that most people still book a return ticket. There is a cohort who play the proces and book one way with carrier a and back with carrier b but that's on short haul. The general market outside the uber proce savvy has a different mindset. If I am in JFK and I miss my flight, it's not the same as being in Beauvais and missing my flight. There's a continent of difference here, people's expectations are a little different.
You're right the market is ever changing, but I don't really expect things to change too much on that front.
Is Norwegian long haul making money yet? #lovetoknow
You're right the market is ever changing, but I don't really expect things to change too much on that front.
Is Norwegian long haul making money yet? #lovetoknow
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Age: 63
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You will know more in three days Skipness One Echo. According to Norwegian's Financial Calendar the Second Quarter Results (April - June 2015) will be released on 16 July 08:30 European Summmer Time.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London, UK & Europe
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With fuel prices good if they are not making cash now (even if they are building a customer base) then it would be worrying. If there is demand for long haul loco service really a customer base should be there.
TrueBlue
I don't know if Gatwick was marketed as a second choice to Heathrow, but I do know that it was "the waiting room for Heathrow". New carriers only went there whilst they were waiting to get into Heathrow eg ANZ, CPX, UAE, KAL, USA, DAL, VIR, AAL etc. This was because they perceived that there was more demand from Heathrow. And, they were correct.
If we are going to get more connecting flights from Gatwick, especially if there is a second runway, then I am all for it - since Gatwick is, physically, much easier to get from terminal to terminal & because we still won't have any services to Heathrow.
I don't think that it will attract any airlines & routes from Heathrow - unless Heathrow doesn't get a third runway. Even then, it will only be because there is no room for expansion from Heathrow; & it will be the less prestigious services that make the transfer.
I don't know if Gatwick was marketed as a second choice to Heathrow, but I do know that it was "the waiting room for Heathrow". New carriers only went there whilst they were waiting to get into Heathrow eg ANZ, CPX, UAE, KAL, USA, DAL, VIR, AAL etc. This was because they perceived that there was more demand from Heathrow. And, they were correct.
If we are going to get more connecting flights from Gatwick, especially if there is a second runway, then I am all for it - since Gatwick is, physically, much easier to get from terminal to terminal & because we still won't have any services to Heathrow.
I don't think that it will attract any airlines & routes from Heathrow - unless Heathrow doesn't get a third runway. Even then, it will only be because there is no room for expansion from Heathrow; & it will be the less prestigious services that make the transfer.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the American carriers that used Lgw for decades lost money but decided to provide a service to us anyway? Or is it that they didn't make as much money as they would like?
Did Virgin and BA fly these routes for decades making a loss but did so out of the kindness of their hearts? If they were making a loss, was this due to the yield they could get or was the problem with them, costs too high?
Did Virgin and BA fly these routes for decades making a loss but did so out of the kindness of their hearts? If they were making a loss, was this due to the yield they could get or was the problem with them, costs too high?
True Blue
You made some valid points. Yet, the FACT remains that many of us , from the non-UK regions, who are forced to connect through Gatwick (because we have no Heathrow service), would very much like Heathrow to expand & offer us a service because, there are precious few non-stop flights to places in USA, Canada, Asia, Africa & Australasia to connect with through Gatwick. Nor are there ever likely to be!
Oh yes, & to connect with flights to these areas we have to make a time consuming trip to & from Heathrow by coach-&, often, have to make a night-stop at Heathrow.
Another FACT is that the carriers which did operate to these places from Gatwick abandoned it for Heathrow at the first available opportunity !
You made some valid points. Yet, the FACT remains that many of us , from the non-UK regions, who are forced to connect through Gatwick (because we have no Heathrow service), would very much like Heathrow to expand & offer us a service because, there are precious few non-stop flights to places in USA, Canada, Asia, Africa & Australasia to connect with through Gatwick. Nor are there ever likely to be!
Oh yes, & to connect with flights to these areas we have to make a time consuming trip to & from Heathrow by coach-&, often, have to make a night-stop at Heathrow.
Another FACT is that the carriers which did operate to these places from Gatwick abandoned it for Heathrow at the first available opportunity !
It will be interesting to see if direct long haul services to new or 'unusual' destinations at LGW will see other airlines start to offer direct services from LHR. For example Thomson are re-starting direct service to Costa Rica and currently are the only airline that fly direct from the UK. Although you could argue that it's a purely tourist route, it's perhaps less so than many others. If I was trying to get to CR, I'd go direct through LGW, rather than going from Heathrow to connect through the US and add several hours to my journey.
I don't think LGW is anywhere near an arseache as people make out. I've quite easily connected through LGW on many occasion.
I don't think LGW is anywhere near an arseache as people make out. I've quite easily connected through LGW on many occasion.
If travelling to Costa Rica with a change of aircraft, much better to go via Spain (say BA/IB via MAD) rather than via the USA (e.g BA/AA via MIA). International to international connections in the USA are the real arseache!
Direct ex-LGW on BY is fine.
I would love Lgw to get the second runway to just watch how quickly all talk of taking expansion plans to Paris, Amsterdam etc melts away. I give it a few days/weeks.
The big difference with long haul compared to the likes of BA and many other carries is that they price punitively if you only book one way, see below..
LHR JFK LHR out on the 16 Oct back on the 23rd with BA £467.06
One way LHR JFK on the 16th £1174.00 with BA
LGW JFK LGW same date (low fare + includes bag and meal) £491.00 basic fare ££391.00
One way LGW JFK on the 16th (low fare +) £209 ......or £182 JFK LGW with Norwegian, so it will cost you just under £1000.00 more with BA
So BA are cheaper for a return trip, not sure if you get a meal? with them but not much in it. Why should you pay 2.5 times the price to travel one way??
LHR JFK LHR out on the 16 Oct back on the 23rd with BA £467.06
One way LHR JFK on the 16th £1174.00 with BA
LGW JFK LGW same date (low fare + includes bag and meal) £491.00 basic fare ££391.00
One way LGW JFK on the 16th (low fare +) £209 ......or £182 JFK LGW with Norwegian, so it will cost you just under £1000.00 more with BA
So BA are cheaper for a return trip, not sure if you get a meal? with them but not much in it. Why should you pay 2.5 times the price to travel one way??
Round trips tickets can be discounted, and sometimes heavily. They usually have various restrictions.
No frills carriers, on the other hand, are based on one way fares.
I don't know if Gatwick was marketed as a second choice to Heathrow, but I do know that it was "the waiting room for Heathrow". New carriers only went there whilst they were waiting to get into Heathrow eg ANZ, CPX, UAE, KAL, USA, DAL, VIR, AAL etc. This was because they perceived that there was more demand from Heathrow. And, they were correct.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southampton
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kcockayne
It would have been far easier for you to have used the official IATA codes rather than the likes of UAE or CPX.
You do realise that until 1991 LHR was closed to all new airlines so airlines such as you mentioned had no choice than to operate from LGW.
Everyone says that long haul can't make a go of it at LGW but airlines such as Continental operated successfully from LGW from 1982 to 2007 until they moved there London operation to LHR after it was opened up to more U.S. Airlines after Bermuda II was retermed.
Sure yields are what airlines are chasing and what with alliance connections LHR will be the obvious choice regardless of a third runway.
Sean
It would have been far easier for you to have used the official IATA codes rather than the likes of UAE or CPX.
You do realise that until 1991 LHR was closed to all new airlines so airlines such as you mentioned had no choice than to operate from LGW.
Everyone says that long haul can't make a go of it at LGW but airlines such as Continental operated successfully from LGW from 1982 to 2007 until they moved there London operation to LHR after it was opened up to more U.S. Airlines after Bermuda II was retermed.
Sure yields are what airlines are chasing and what with alliance connections LHR will be the obvious choice regardless of a third runway.
Sean
Canberra97
That's the whole point of what I am saying. Practically all of the long haul airlines have only used Gatwick because they had to. Once the restriction had been removed, & they were able to get slots, they all moved to Heathrow.
That's not going to change if Heathrow gets another runway. If it does, watch out for more long haul from Heathrow, & not from Gatwick.
The demand is at Heathrow. There may be more low cost carriers operating long haul from Gatwick, but the Legacy carriers want Heathrow.
That's the whole point of what I am saying. Practically all of the long haul airlines have only used Gatwick because they had to. Once the restriction had been removed, & they were able to get slots, they all moved to Heathrow.
That's not going to change if Heathrow gets another runway. If it does, watch out for more long haul from Heathrow, & not from Gatwick.
The demand is at Heathrow. There may be more low cost carriers operating long haul from Gatwick, but the Legacy carriers want Heathrow.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ballymena
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So we vote to keep all the power with Lhr and in relation to routes to N America especially, the power with the big 3, BA/AA, VS/DL and UA. Make sure as far as possible that it is almost impossible for new entrants to enter the market to offer something different/better service. I refer you back to LNIDA's post no 2641 and his/her snap research on fares. Keep competition at bay and allow the big boys to charge what they can. One thing you need to remember about capitalism is this, it doesn't always behave well. In fact, often it goes too far and as a country, we are still recovering from some of the bad effects of it from almost 10 years ago. And I believe strongly in capitalism myself. However, I do not accept the arguments around Lhr, this is nothing more than protectionism. And if Lgw was to get the second runway, it would become a hub in no time, because the airlines would have nowhere else to go and would not walk away from London. So the question is, for these airlines who tell us that routes out of Lgw, that they have operated for decades, lose money. Do they lose money or not make as much as they would like? There is a difference.
Questions are asked frequently about Norwegian and profitability. What about Virgin. I read a post very recently stating that if Virgin had not been allowed to fly from Lhr, they would have gone under. Getting into Lhr saved them. So why did they continue services from Lgw if they were losing money there so badly. Why following the last review, was it that it was Lhr routes that were cut. And why, since they had access to that saviour called Heathrow, did they still need to team up with Delta?
Sorry not to accept the party line here, but I have seen enough over my life to know when all the cards are being stacked so as to favor one party and make sure another party is kept at bay. UK PLC will regret eventually giving the 3rd runway to Lhr as we will all pay through higher fares. One final question. Why, when oil prices have fallen so heavily, has fares and additional charges not? And I know about hedging.
TB
Questions are asked frequently about Norwegian and profitability. What about Virgin. I read a post very recently stating that if Virgin had not been allowed to fly from Lhr, they would have gone under. Getting into Lhr saved them. So why did they continue services from Lgw if they were losing money there so badly. Why following the last review, was it that it was Lhr routes that were cut. And why, since they had access to that saviour called Heathrow, did they still need to team up with Delta?
Sorry not to accept the party line here, but I have seen enough over my life to know when all the cards are being stacked so as to favor one party and make sure another party is kept at bay. UK PLC will regret eventually giving the 3rd runway to Lhr as we will all pay through higher fares. One final question. Why, when oil prices have fallen so heavily, has fares and additional charges not? And I know about hedging.
TB
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys stop mis-representing the arguement. It's not that airlines cannot make money flying long haul out of Gatwick, quite the contrary. As has been stated on numerous occasions, it's a matter of profitability. If a carrier has experience of flying LGW-xyz and LHR-xyz and the latter is a more profitable experience AND they see no need to serve London from two airports, they choose LHR.
In terms of BA and VS long haul, what remains at LGW is predominantly long haul beach holidays which need little feed, a good niche for Gatters. The loss making myth kicks in with those occasional wars and disasters which push airlines to the edge and they realise it was only not being exclusively at LGW which kept then afloat.
What DY is pioneering, is long haul low cost with connections, to do this, they have a very low cost base, which is why they were trying to pretend to the American authorities they were Irish and not Norwegian, so they could staff their new B788s with low cost pilots. No, really, let's not pretend otherwise chaps, they're ruthless, they need to be.
In terms of BA and VS long haul, what remains at LGW is predominantly long haul beach holidays which need little feed, a good niche for Gatters. The loss making myth kicks in with those occasional wars and disasters which push airlines to the edge and they realise it was only not being exclusively at LGW which kept then afloat.
What DY is pioneering, is long haul low cost with connections, to do this, they have a very low cost base, which is why they were trying to pretend to the American authorities they were Irish and not Norwegian, so they could staff their new B788s with low cost pilots. No, really, let's not pretend otherwise chaps, they're ruthless, they need to be.
skipness
Exactly so - which is what I have been trying to say. I have absolutely no argument with what you are saying. Established, long haul, traditional carriers prefer Heathrow. They could make money at Gatwick - but more at Heathrow.
Give those who are, or were, at Gatwick half a chance & they switch to Heathrow.
No extra runway at Gatwick is going to change that; provided that there is space for them at Heathrow.
Exactly so - which is what I have been trying to say. I have absolutely no argument with what you are saying. Established, long haul, traditional carriers prefer Heathrow. They could make money at Gatwick - but more at Heathrow.
Give those who are, or were, at Gatwick half a chance & they switch to Heathrow.
No extra runway at Gatwick is going to change that; provided that there is space for them at Heathrow.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sussex
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The carriers that operated long haul services successfully from Gatwick historically, did so because the majority of the routes served from Gatwick were not operated in parallel from LHR, that dynamic has changed and that is why long haul from Gatwick is significantly more challenging now and avoided by most carriers.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Age: 63
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipness One Echo:
Is Norwegian long haul making money yet?
Is Norwegian long haul making money yet?
It seems like Norwegian Long Haul starts to make money now since Norwegian now says: Reached critical mass and expect positive contribution going forward.
Below is a link to the Q2 2015 Presentation
http://www.norwegian.no/globalassets...esentation.pdf
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that, one would expect no less than a huge jump in revenue given the growth phase we've seen, however profitability, not being shouted about.
This is as expected, there's still a lot of pain there I think, time will tell.
"Good load and improving yield for long haul" - no number attached is a tell.
"Expect positive contribution from long haul going forward" - again some wriggle room in there.
"Aiming for further unit cost reductions" - BOHICA (google it)
This is as expected, there's still a lot of pain there I think, time will tell.
"Good load and improving yield for long haul" - no number attached is a tell.
"Expect positive contribution from long haul going forward" - again some wriggle room in there.
"Aiming for further unit cost reductions" - BOHICA (google it)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ballymena
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So referring back to S1E's comment on 15th July. We can agree that it is probably the case that they can make money out of Gatwick, but they think they can make more using Lhr. Now we are back to my point about the fact that by awarding the 3rd runway to Lhr, we are providing the big airlines and Lhr with the almost monopoly situation to make us pay more.
But why would Lgw be a less desirable airport to put capacity into than say a UK provincial airport? It is generally accepted that Lgw is situated in a wealthy area and also has London to draw from. So would it still be a worse option than say, Newcastle, Glasgow or Manchester? Or Shannon? I have no idea of the answer to this.
TB
But why would Lgw be a less desirable airport to put capacity into than say a UK provincial airport? It is generally accepted that Lgw is situated in a wealthy area and also has London to draw from. So would it still be a worse option than say, Newcastle, Glasgow or Manchester? Or Shannon? I have no idea of the answer to this.
TB