GATWICK

[Skipness One Echo]

I think it's more that BA are reintroducing routes that they used to fly not too long ago, and if not BA, then GB Airways. If LGW (God save us) gets a second runway, then it will stand empty much of the time IMHO.

They cannot command a premium to pay for it so even if charges remain in line with today, I don't see a queue of airlines wanting into LGW. Anyone wanting in is already there. What market dynamic would change with an expanded LGW if LHR continues to bleed new long haul to FRA, CDG and especially AMS? I genuinely and honestly am baffled as to where they think all this traffic will come from as the only growth we see at LGW is in the loco sphere, and yes, that's BA short haul too. (a good thing!)

A few more BA heavies and more Norwegian B787s do not need a new runway and EZY don't want to pay for one.

[BAladdy]

BA to finally retire last 737 on 30th September

According to airlineroute.net BA's flight from LGW to TRN on 30th September is to be the final flight to be operated by a LGW based 737

British Airways to End Boeing 737 Service in late-Sep 2015 | Airline Route

According to the post on the airlineroute.net website, Planned last British Airways’ Boeing 737 operation for each route during the month of September 2015 as follow.

London Gatwick – Algiers Last 737-400 flight on 24SEP15
London Gatwick – Amsterdam Last 737-400 flight on 15SEP15
London Gatwick – Cagliari Last 737-400 flight on 14SEP15
London Gatwick – Catania Last 737-400 flight on 25SEP15
London Gatwick – Faro Last 737-400 flight on 26SEP15
London Gatwick – Glasgow Last 737-400 flight on 21SEP15
London Gatwick – Ibiza Last 737-400 flight on 01SEP15
London Gatwick – Jersey Last 737-400 flight on 21SEP15
London Gatwick – Malaga Last 737-400 flight on 23SEP15
London Gatwick – Malta Last 737-400 flight on 27SEP15
London Gatwick – Marrakech Last 737-400 flight on 24SEP15
London Gatwick – Naples Last 737-400 flight on 22SEP15
London Gatwick – Rome Last 737-400 flight on 16SEP15
London Gatwick – Seville Last 737-400 flight on 13SEP15
London Gatwick – Thessaloniki Last 737-400 flight on 27SEP15
London Gatwick – Tirana Last 737-400 flight on 11SEP15
London Gatwick – Turin Overall final 737-400 service on 30SEP15
London Gatwick – Verona Last 737-400 flight on 29SEP15

[True Blue]

Skipness

You and a few others have been very consistent in your views re some parts of the Lgw operation, especially long haul.

On the BA thread I asked when BA started flying to Orlando. One reply said about 1987, I have no idea if it is right or wrong, but have no reason to believe the reply was not given in good faith.

On another forum there is a discussion running on the topic of BA transferring both the Orlando and Tampa flights to Lhr, on the basis that would be a much better result. The attitude is almost how dumb to keep those routes at Lgw. That is a view that comes through on a regular basis re any long haul route out of Lgw. It will fail at Lgw and anyway, Lgw is only the waiting room for a transfer to Lhr. The point has been made quite widely that any long haul route out of Lgw will lose money.

I have been following that argument for years now but found it difficult to understand, never mind believe. You see, Ba has had almost 30 years to transfer Orlando to Lhr, but so far, have chosen not to. So is it being suggested that BA are flying to Orlando 2 daily and losing or not making much money? Before the mass transfer to Lhr, Delta, American and Continental flew into Lgw for what, maybe 2 or 3 decades. For many years they had multiple flights a day with wide bodies and some of those routes also had a BA service. So are we suggesting that the American carriers flew into Lgw and were making no/very little money. But the point has always been made that there is more money to be made at Lhr, which I cannot dispute as I have no idea. And I know they had to use Lgw during this period.

But then on the "another runway at Lhr" thread, more light was shed on this idea that there is more money to be made at Lhr. In that discussion, if any of you have followed it, it becomes clear that fares are higher for a reason, limited supply. And because supply is maxed out, airlines can charge a higher fare there. Now we are starting to talk monopoly pricing. And what is clear is that routes into Lgw are probably not loss making, but make less because history has put Lhr into too dominant a position. So with BAA making sure Lhr was in a dominant position, neglect Lgw, get the co-operation of many of the other parts of the travel industry, you get a situation that is self-fulfilling and suits all at Lhr. Peddle a story that Lgw is just bucket and spade, Avios redemption, few if any business pax, lack of connectivity, keep packing them in at Lhr where it has been "full" for about 25 years and it all remains on message. Note the key issue here, fares are higher at Lhr. And who pays those higher fares?

Easyjet's submission to the commission has been quoted. Do you think Easyjet were speaking for themselves or for the good of joe public? Of course they don't want to pay for a new runway at Lgw, but would help to pay for a new one at Lhr where they say they would start services from. So what do they want out of this? Well, by the time a new runway appears at Lhr, demand will almost fill it straight away I bet. Many here believe that BA will move everything as will Virgin. Maybe also some of Easyjet plus more foreign carriers. So they will get access to higher fares at Lhr because by that time it will be near capacity constrained again. back to the supply and demand situation we have today, route as many through Lhr as possible. Meantime, Lgw will be decimated and the message that routes at Lgw fail will be trumpeted louder than ever. So those of you who support expansion at Lhr are basically supporting the idea that all of us should pay higher fares for ever, especially on long haul, to keep the establishment happy.

And no I don't agree that if the new runway goes to Lgw that airlines will go elsewhere. They will be in in a flash in spite of what they say. Because the truth is, long haul out of Gatwick does make money for the most, just not as much as some greedy airlines would like.

Please do not take my post personally, it is not meant to be.

TB

[BAladdy]

Originally Posted by True Blue

On the BA thread I asked when BA started flying to Orlando. One reply said about 1987, I have no idea if it is right or wrong, but have no reason to believe the reply was not given in good faith.

BA started ops to Orlando before 1987. In fact I believe that BA started flights via Miami in 1985. I am basing this date on firstly this article that I found online from July 1984 which gives info on how Orlando and Tampa were both competing to become BA's next destination in Florida

http://www.upi.com/Archives/1984/07/...4946459403200/

I have also found this post on airlineroute.net. The post details BA's Inter-Continental network for the W85/86. During that season BA operated a 747 2 x weekly to Orlando Via Miami and a 747 4 x weekly to Tampa via Miami. Flights to both Orlando and Tampa operated using the same flight numbers, BA293/BA292.

1985/86: British Airways Inter-Continental Network | Airline Route

Hope this helps answer your question. Sorry I couldn't find a exact date

[Skipness One Echo]

You and a few others have been very consistent in your views re some parts of the Lgw operation, especially long haul.

The BA Beach Fleet makes rather good money apparently, focussed on high end point to point leisure, only up against one other direct competitor in that space in VS and with TOM and TCX in the charter space. Good Gatwick fit, predominantly holiday flights.

On another forum there is a discussion running on the topic of BA transferring both the Orlando and Tampa flights to Lhr, on the basis that would be a much better result.

It might make a difference to the bottom line, yields might be higher, but if they're predominantly P2P and doing well at LGW and moving to LHR wouldn't add to connectivity or make much more profit then there's no pressing need. If BA need to pile more aircraft into LHR to maintain market share with a third runway, that dynamic changes. The cost benefits of consolidating at one long haul base now have a pressing need to defend the postion at LHR as well and so a move might be more likely if and when we see new concrete.

So is it being suggested that BA are flying to Orlando 2 daily and losing or not making much money?

Noooooo, it's long haul P2P leisure filled with no / little need for feed, a holiday flight fitting the LGW profile rather well.

So are we suggesting that the American carriers flew into Lgw and were making no/very little money.

Adam Thomson and Richard Branson, as well as Laker himself were prevented from operating from LHR and kept at LGW for a reason, to protect BA at LHR where the yields were higher. SRB admits VS would have gone under after 1991 if they had not been granted LHR access that year after the first Gulf War. They moved their US hub operations to LHR as well as prime business destinations like NRT. The Beach Fleet routes were introduced later, MCO and the Carribean have no pressing need to move as the Upper Class cabin is way smaller on the LGW B744s. (It's 14C versus 48C out of LHR). Again, good LGW fit in long haul leisure, no feed required.
The US carriers were legacy network carriers feeding their own hubs. Each has served LGW and LHR, indeed DL,US, NW and CO operated dual ops after 2008. As soon as they compared XYZ-LHR with XYZ-LGW, the LGW operation was dropped. Immediately with American, after one season with CO and NW and much later with US and DL. The end result was that however well they'd done at LGW, US-LON ops were better served out of LHR and flying out of LGW was diluting yield. The ongoing LGW-JFK with BA was the lowest yielding of the multiple LON-NYC flights they flew, this was made semi public as certain people were fed up being asked "But why don't you bring back LGW-JFK?" (for a fourth try!)
Different fit in this case, larger paid for premium cabins used in this market and serving airports with connections to partner airlines via US hubs. This sits better at LHR.

And no I don't agree that if the new runway goes to Lgw that airlines will go elsewhere. They will be in in a flash in spite of what they say. Because the truth is, long haul out of Gatwick does make money for the most, just not as much as some greedy airlines would like.

What airlines are you thinking of? Long haul hubs with partners, LGW has no alliance connectivity whatsoever. SKYTEAM are strong at LHR T4 and hub at AMS/CDG, STAR use LHR T2 and hub at FRA / ZRH. Genuine question, what airlines will be in there in a flash? LHR runway three might be filled up overnight but the churn in newcomers will be huge before it settles down. There's not that many long haul carriers in a queue to serve London.

I can think of LAN Chile, Aerolineas Argentinas as newcomers.
easyJet would certainly have a go, unlikely to see Ryanair. Norwegian Air Shuttle might have a crack at both long and short haul if they're still around.
But the list of new realistic and likely new entrants is not enormous. The existing carriers would l-ove to drop in new destinations but again, it would year likely be organic over a 8-10 year period rather before things settle.
The big (quiet) opportunity seldom talked about is going after the lines of B747Fs and B777Fs that AMS, CDG and FRA have.

[roverman]

High-end beach fleets £££££

A friend of mine and his family living in Manchester are flying LGW-MCO this month and paying £1000 each rtn on BA. Asked why he is not using the VS 2 x daily 747 MAN-MCO he replied that the fare is £1600 rtn!!! That is certainly high-end leisure, even at BA's fares.

[Ian Brooks]

They would be lucky to even get seats ex MAN that`s why the fares are so high.

Ian

[LadyL2013]

Does anyone have an up to date stand/gate map. Seen lots of aircraft (including my parents one last week) allocated ones that don't appear on the maps that I have seen.

[canberra97]

LadyL2013

Have you tried the NATS website or AIS site and looked under the category NOTAM then look under airfield charts, you should find your information as they are always updated.

Sean

[LadyL2013]

I looked on NATS, but can't find it, unless I'm being completely blind.

EDIT: Yes, I was being completely blind. Thanks!

They are part of the Pier 5 reconfiguration., which very annoyingly blocks any view of the airfield in the North departures. I hope this is not the case for the lounges too?

[TSR2]

Asked why he is not using the VS 2 x daily 747 MAN-MCO he replied that the fare is £1600 rtn!!! That is certainly high-end leisure, even at BA's fares

Just checked VS MAN-MCO return later this month and price is well below £1000.

[Skipness One Echo]

The AIS is out of date alas but will updated soon for 555 Northwards. There are very good airfield views now, much better than before IMHO. Where are you looking from???

[davidjohnson6]

Fares UK-Orlando

Virtually every school in the UK is on holidays for the duration of August. I say virtually just to cover myself in case there's some really unusual school which doesn't follow normal terms.
Demand amongst children to get visit Mickey Mouse is usually very high.
Trips to visit Florida theme parks are normally booked months in advance.

Could the above three points have anything to do with why fares to Florida are currently showing as very high for later in August ?

Fares on leisure routes always spike during school holiday periods. Most of the year however, kids are in school rather than on holiday, so leisure routes at Gatwick have to be able to substantially earn their keep without reliance on the month of August.
Perhaps looking at fares for November or May (excluding half term) might give a better idea as to how the BA long-haul routes at Gatwick are doing ?

[danielsirrom]

A friend of mine and his family living in Manchester are flying LGW-MCO this month and paying £1000 each rtn on BA. Asked why he is not using the VS 2 x daily 747 MAN-MCO he replied that the fare is £1600 rtn!!! That is certainly high-end leisure, even at BA's fares.

Hence there were at least 5 families on our BHX-JFK-MCO routing a couple of weeks ago with American Airlines! £500 return paid, VS/BA wanted £1000+ for non stop(from LGW or MAN)

[Skipness One Echo]

Don't assume all LGW long haul is a families and kiddies route to the House of Mouse. Much of the traffic is in winter to the Caribbean, BGI has a capacity leap each October once summer is over. MCO might be cheaper in Nov, not so for many of the rest.

[True Blue]

Skipness

In response to your reply.

Re new airlines, I have no idea, but I have read reports where Lhr claim to have about 30 waiting for slots to get into Lhr. Who they might be, no idea.

Can we agree that barring major shocks, like war/terrorist or economic, that the market will probably grow? And we have been told it will take 10 years to get a new runway at Lhr, maybe longer but I am 99% certain it will not be sooner. Just a UK thing.

So as the market grows and airlines want to add capacity, what do they do. Lhr is full, we are told. To me, Lgw is a better bet than Stn, although Lgw is very busy as well.

Keep in mind this growing market, but the new runway goes to Lgw. What do the airlines that need to add capacity do? Walk away? Or the new ones with maybe new routes?

In my opinion, there is no way they will take that extra capacity to a continental airport. Away from one of the best markets there is. I am also working on the basis that it s not just possible to put an A380 on instead of an A321. BA is probably the biggest player here.

So, in your opinion, what do you think they would do if the runway went to Lgw? Ignore the opportunity or go for it?

Thanks

TB

[LadyL2013]

Skipness, we were there at the end of May and the entire North Terminal departure lounge view was blocked by the new Pier building. Granted the 3 restaurants at the end towards the runway were blocked off, so the view might have been OK there.

What is the view like from No. 1 North?

[SWBKCB]

Virtually every school in the UK is on holidays for the duration of August. I say virtually just to cover myself in case there's some really unusual school which doesn't follow normal terms.

In the "really unusual" country of Scotland (still in the UK), schools go back well before the end of August.

Way off topic for LGW, but this mismatch in holidays generates a lot of cross-border movement (of pax and aircraft) because of the different peak seasons.

[Tigger4Me]

...but this mismatch in holidays generates a lot of cross-border movement (of pax and aircraft) because of the different peak seasons.

Guilty as charged m'lud! I needed to make a trip over from Spain towards the end of August last year. It actually worked out cheaper to fly into GLA and hire a car to get to EMA than fly direct. As a bonus I had a drive through the beautiful Lake District with a lovely pub lunch en route paid for out of the savings and with cash to spare.

The flight back from LGW (to get back on topic!) was after the English schools were back so at more reasonable price.

[Skipness One Echo]

Keep in mind this growing market, but the new runway goes to Lgw. What do the airlines that need to add capacity do? Walk away? Or the new ones with maybe new routes?

What people tend to do is throw "airlines" together as one mass. They're not. Some will only serve LHR, long haul airlines connecting the UK to the world have been proven time after time after time to do less well at Gatwick. This means their competitors at LHR have them for breakfast and they fail. So to get long haul airlines into the UK, the overwhelming place they choose is LHR. If they can't get in, they add capacity at a partner hub like Skyteam AMS/CDG or STAR FRA/ZRH. This is because in this market, the big boys need to be in an alliance and they stick together. You might say look at Garuda, they serve LGW. They do, and they fly an almost empty B777 out most days except weekends when it's full with local LGW-AMS traffic.

So LGW isn't an option on that market, any new runway at LGW would be for locos and holiday flights. Nothing wrong with that per se, but to get the biggest bang for the economy, it needs to be LHR runway 3. LGW can have another runway if it wants, I see no objection tbh, but I do not for a moment believe the rubbish from GIP about LGW being a hub. Ever.