EasyJet - 4
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I heard Carolyn McCall' message today, makes total sense. Opening LGW up to another runway would mean an invasion of competition on its biggest patch. Whereas supporting LHR would mean securing their monopoly of slots at LGW plus potentially going into LHR where the competitive set is higher cost carriers, in essence a honey pot for a low cost carrier.
She also cited the fact that the construction of a runway at LGW would mean disruption and challenges to their sizeable operation at LGW.....
She also cited the fact that the construction of a runway at LGW would mean disruption and challenges to their sizeable operation at LGW.....
http://corporate.easyjet.com/~/media...on-jan2015.pdf
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't that often see eye to eye with what EZY says or does on a number of things but I have to say I agree with pretty much everything they're saying here.
Key points I see value in are...
- Gatwick would require pre-funding (significant increase in charges prior to runway opening) which would more heavily impact short-haul leisure passengers than the premium long-haul passengers at Heathrow.
- Heathrow would attract low-cost airlines like EasyJet. Direct competition with legacy carriers will bring down fares on short-haul routes. 70% of Gatwick's short-haul is already low-cost carriers, less future competition and alongside pre-funding, fares for passengers will increase.
- Heathrow is far more flexible in terms of catering for future demand. Gatwick depends more on the success of low-cost long-haul carriers (which I agree for reasons stated in report are unlikely to be successful long-term)
There's still a few points though that I don't agree so much on.
- I think EZY overemphasise the extent to which people want to use primary airports. To me, the case they make isn't so much about Heathrow being a primary or hub airport, but instead more competition (to lower fares) and better catering for various future demands.
- I think they also under-estimate the growth at the other London airports LTN, STN, LCY and SEN. I think more than 39 million passengers will be using LTN, STN and SEN collectively by 2030. That's only about 5 million more than today.
- Also the route network they have designed for Heathrow. This surely is more just for show. It's purely based on route networks that exist today. I can't see how you can develop an accurate route network for 20 years down the line. It gives nothing more than a rough indication to the size of the network they might have.
Key points I see value in are...
- Gatwick would require pre-funding (significant increase in charges prior to runway opening) which would more heavily impact short-haul leisure passengers than the premium long-haul passengers at Heathrow.
- Heathrow would attract low-cost airlines like EasyJet. Direct competition with legacy carriers will bring down fares on short-haul routes. 70% of Gatwick's short-haul is already low-cost carriers, less future competition and alongside pre-funding, fares for passengers will increase.
- Heathrow is far more flexible in terms of catering for future demand. Gatwick depends more on the success of low-cost long-haul carriers (which I agree for reasons stated in report are unlikely to be successful long-term)
There's still a few points though that I don't agree so much on.
- I think EZY overemphasise the extent to which people want to use primary airports. To me, the case they make isn't so much about Heathrow being a primary or hub airport, but instead more competition (to lower fares) and better catering for various future demands.
- I think they also under-estimate the growth at the other London airports LTN, STN, LCY and SEN. I think more than 39 million passengers will be using LTN, STN and SEN collectively by 2030. That's only about 5 million more than today.
- Also the route network they have designed for Heathrow. This surely is more just for show. It's purely based on route networks that exist today. I can't see how you can develop an accurate route network for 20 years down the line. It gives nothing more than a rough indication to the size of the network they might have.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LGW is fast becoming slot restricted at peak times, leaving LGW at one runway maintains that and therefore suits easyJet current monopoly position, opening a 3rd or 4th runway at LHR would allow easyJet to move some operations there whilst still maintaining a sizeable LGW operation.
This statement has got nothing to do with lowering prices or improving competition, but is all about easyJets commercial needs, perfectly understandable
This statement has got nothing to do with lowering prices or improving competition, but is all about easyJets commercial needs, perfectly understandable
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
is all about easyJets commercial needs
Well I'm just pleased that Carolyn McCall has made a professional statement about the future of UK aviation, and it does come over like that rather than the sort of narrow partisan view that the likes of O'Leary would make. Yes, it is in the overall interests of UK aviation to increase the capacity at Heathrow. Build a second runway at Gatwick and you will STILL have everyone holding at Lambourne for 30 minutes most days, while the doubled capacity at Gatwick, which Easy as the No 1 user will have to pay for, goes unused.
It's also in Easy's interest as well. A 50% increase in Heathrow capacity and both BA and Virgin will be gone from Gatwick overnight, just like the US carriers all walked out on the place the moment the Bermuda 2 restrictions were lifted.
To be frank, I'm getting fed up with Gatwick's ludicrous and partisan advertising. Recently they have taken to posters along the M4 to Heathrow saying that traffic along there would get worse if Heathrow's extra runway goes ahead. Just how long do they think it would take to get out down the unmodernised A23 through Brixton and Croydon if Gatwick doubles its runways ? Not everyone wants to fag over to Victoria and run the gauntlet of the most unreliable rail service in London out through East Croydon etc. I imagine Carolyn McCall is equally hacked off with the downright rude comments Gatwick made about her statement ("narrow commercial interests"), given that Easyjet are Gatwick's No 1 customer, and that Easyjet know way more about UK aviation than a bunch of USA-based investment lawyers. I hope she tells them so in no uncertain terms.
It's also in Easy's interest as well. A 50% increase in Heathrow capacity and both BA and Virgin will be gone from Gatwick overnight, just like the US carriers all walked out on the place the moment the Bermuda 2 restrictions were lifted.
To be frank, I'm getting fed up with Gatwick's ludicrous and partisan advertising. Recently they have taken to posters along the M4 to Heathrow saying that traffic along there would get worse if Heathrow's extra runway goes ahead. Just how long do they think it would take to get out down the unmodernised A23 through Brixton and Croydon if Gatwick doubles its runways ? Not everyone wants to fag over to Victoria and run the gauntlet of the most unreliable rail service in London out through East Croydon etc. I imagine Carolyn McCall is equally hacked off with the downright rude comments Gatwick made about her statement ("narrow commercial interests"), given that Easyjet are Gatwick's No 1 customer, and that Easyjet know way more about UK aviation than a bunch of USA-based investment lawyers. I hope she tells them so in no uncertain terms.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
easyJet and Carolyn McCall have just risen even higher in my view than they already were. Most of the points in the document seem valid as general points and not just looked at from their perspective, and are clearly expressed. Kudos!
I had to laugh inwardly this morning at the pettiness of some people. I was on an easyJet flight and had booked seat 2A as the one I normally have, 1F, was not available when I booked. When boarding was completed it was unoccupied so I asked a member if the crew if I could move, adding that I was an EZY+ card holder. He asked to see my card, correctly so, and confirmed that I could have the seat.
The woman in 2C then asked if she could move to the front row and the FA asked her if she was an EZY+ card holder, at which she kicked up a fuss and said 'if the seat's free it's free for anyone', and why could 'he' (i.e. me!) move and not her. He very pleasantly and clearly explained that they were chargeable seats at which she just become more and more angry ........
The FA handled the situation extremely professionally but had to tell her that if she didn't stop swearing she would be disembarked.
I had to laugh inwardly this morning at the pettiness of some people. I was on an easyJet flight and had booked seat 2A as the one I normally have, 1F, was not available when I booked. When boarding was completed it was unoccupied so I asked a member if the crew if I could move, adding that I was an EZY+ card holder. He asked to see my card, correctly so, and confirmed that I could have the seat.
The woman in 2C then asked if she could move to the front row and the FA asked her if she was an EZY+ card holder, at which she kicked up a fuss and said 'if the seat's free it's free for anyone', and why could 'he' (i.e. me!) move and not her. He very pleasantly and clearly explained that they were chargeable seats at which she just become more and more angry ........
The FA handled the situation extremely professionally but had to tell her that if she didn't stop swearing she would be disembarked.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Miles from where I want to be.
Age: 39
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very well handled. I don't know why people think they're entitled to a an upgrade. It's no different to a Star Gold member being upgraded to Eco+ or a preferred seat. If you wanted an upgrade to the premium cabin on a legacy carrier you'd ask kindly!
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally i'm still at a loss to understand why it has to LHR or LGW, surely if both can fund their respective runway plans then why not?
If LHR gets the green light i hope its for two additional runways, it will be 2025 before anything is flying from them.
It will still be a long haul airport with few UK feeder services
I guess much will depend on the general election in May, if the SNP have labour by the tail, then it might be PIK
If LHR gets the green light i hope its for two additional runways, it will be 2025 before anything is flying from them.
It will still be a long haul airport with few UK feeder services
I guess much will depend on the general election in May, if the SNP have labour by the tail, then it might be PIK
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I'm just pleased that Carolyn McCall has made a professional statement about the future of UK aviation, and it does come over like that rather than the sort of narrow partisan view that the likes of O'Leary would make. Yes, it is in the overall interests of UK aviation to increase the capacity at Heathrow. Build a second runway at Gatwick and you will STILL have everyone holding at Lambourne for 30 minutes most days, while the doubled capacity at Gatwick, which Easy as the No 1 user will have to pay for, goes unused.
It's also in Easy's interest as well. A 50% increase in Heathrow capacity and both BA and Virgin will be gone from Gatwick overnight, just like the US carriers all walked out on the place the moment the Bermuda 2 restrictions were lifted.
(1) it gets the opportunity to create a sizable operation at LHR;
(2) plenty of available slots give it the opportunity to expand at LGW as the "waiting room" (for LHR) empties, and other migrations to LHR to take place.
To be frank, I'm getting fed up with Gatwick's ludicrous and partisan advertising. Recently they have taken to posters along the M4 to Heathrow saying that traffic along there would get worse if Heathrow's extra runway goes ahead.
Desperation on the part of Gatwick airport Ltd.?
Just how long do they think it would take to get out down the unmodernised A23 through Brixton and Croydon if Gatwick doubles its runways ? Not everyone wants to fag over to Victoria and run the gauntlet of the most unreliable rail service in London out through East Croydon etc.
Personally i'm still at a loss to understand why it has to LHR or LGW, surely if both can fund their respective runway plans then why not?
If LHR gets the green light i hope its for two additional runways, it will be 2025 before anything is flying from them.
It will still be a long haul airport with few UK feeder services
I guess much will depend on the general election in May, if the SNP have labour by the tail, then it might be PIK
It will be presented as party that nearly bankrupted the UK linking up with the party that nearly broke up the UK. Whether true or not, it would be toxic for Labour. "Vote UKIP get Miliband" is lame in comparison.
Maybe not good for the SNP either now that Labour has thrown it away in Scotland: "Vote SNP get Miliband".
How would a Lab/SNP deal affect a decision on airport expansion?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Oh Cavey
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to dissapoint EK77WNCL but this is the new livery... Part of the conditions of using the easyJet name is that it must be white on orange. That's why it has changed. The old scheme was with easyjet written as Orange on white and is a requirement by easygroup who own the rights to the name easyJet.
Rebrands of well known consumer companies are *very* expensive and time consuming. A company known globally which is reasonably well regarded will incur high costs in recapturing the brand recognition and perception of the company by people.
Yes there is grief from Easygroup, but is it sufficient to really go for the complete rename option ? Perhaps the game for Easygroup is to extract as much cash as possible over a long term timescale without being seen as sufficiently awkward to push Easyjet management too far.
Yes there is grief from Easygroup, but is it sufficient to really go for the complete rename option ? Perhaps the game for Easygroup is to extract as much cash as possible over a long term timescale without being seen as sufficiently awkward to push Easyjet management too far.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Gateshead, UK
Age: 25
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All seems silly to me, hopefully the livery will grow on me but... I very much look forward to the next new livery!
They should have just swapped to the inverted livery.
They should have just swapped to the inverted livery.
The problem is, is that the easyJet brand is formidable in strength. It is probably the most valuable asset of the business. When people refer to a shade of orange as 'easyJet orange' in everyday life then the brand really has very much ingrained itself in popular culture and the conscience of millions of potential customers. Why would you want to change that brand to the extent that no one recognises you in the market place. To drop the easyJet brand would be disastrous in my opinion. Love it or hate it, it's a powerful brand and you don't just throw that away.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bring back 'go'. Now that was a good brand and good branding 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqyUd-gY9l4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqyUd-gY9l4