Gatwick-2
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The LN- registered B788/789s are operated by Norwegian Air Shuttle (NAX)
Norwegian's website shows (correctly) that they currently have 6 different AOCs
Norwegian Air Shuttle and Norwegian Air Norway in Norway
Norwegian Air International in Ireland
Norwegian UK
Norwegian Air Sweden
Norwegian Air Argentina
They did once have an AOC for Norwegian Long Haul but this became inactive at least two years ago I believe and has now presumably been surrendered/revoked.
Norwegian's website shows (correctly) that they currently have 6 different AOCs
Norwegian Air Shuttle and Norwegian Air Norway in Norway
Norwegian Air International in Ireland
Norwegian UK
Norwegian Air Sweden
Norwegian Air Argentina
They did once have an AOC for Norwegian Long Haul but this became inactive at least two years ago I believe and has now presumably been surrendered/revoked.
Where's this rumour coming from that Gatters will be banning ATRs? I assume to drive up the flow rate? Nonsense or not?
They did change their charging structure to destroy flybe's LGW ops without a second thought, and before anyone shouts "NQY", that survives as it's a subsidised route
They did change their charging structure to destroy flybe's LGW ops without a second thought, and before anyone shouts "NQY", that survives as it's a subsidised route
Last edited by Skipness One Foxtrot; 24th Oct 2019 at 01:28.
I REALLY SHOULDN'T BE HERE
ATRs don’t slow down the flow rate. The Gatwick speeds are roughly 220kts beyond the holding fix, 180kts on intercept and 160kts to 4 miles all of which is achievable in an ATR. The different approach speeds from 4 miles to touchdown makes negligible difference to the flow rate.
If there is a move against smaller airframes it will merely be to push more passengers through the airport.
If there is a move against smaller airframes it will merely be to push more passengers through the airport.
I thought that was the unstated reason as to why Gatwick changed their charging structure - namely increase the number of pax that pass through the airport per take-off/landing slot. If an airport can't magic up some more slots, the value of slots accrues to airlines not the airport, and pax are being milked as hard as possible on parking and shops, then this is an obvious way to increase profits for the airport...
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: -
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know when (or if) Cathay are likely to upgauge their LGW-HKG route to the A351? From what I've seen, the route has been incredibly popular since CX's return to LGW, going from 4/weekly to daily in just 8 months, and having spoken with cabin crew, the flight always seems full, even outside holiday season. MAN has already seen the A351, so I can't see why LGW won't be seeing it. Also, are there any plans to expand the route beyond the current daily service? Given the recent political situation in HKG, I appreciate it that CX may wish to hold off expansion, but I don't see why LGW shouldn't be able to support a double daily service to HKG further down the line.
If you do a flight search for routes to Asia or Australia and type in the departing city as just "London" so then it searches all London airports, the pricing for flights for Cathay Pacific flights out of Gatwick will nearly always be cheaper than the Heathrow flights. Usually with a price difference of £20-50 on economy routes, while it isn't a huge difference, when you multiply that by 200+ passengers it makes a big difference, and gives passengers an incentive to fly this route as opposed to the Heathrow option.
Im sure the route is profitable, but the airline probably doesn't want to dilute prices further by offering further capacity. They can continue to offer the LGW option for the more price sensitive passengers wanting to fly CX and in time drive the prices up to match that of Heathrow, and once this is done if demand remains offer the A350-1000 then.
Very similar with China Airlines flying to Taipei, (the Taiwan carrier, not to be confused with the China Mainland carriers), which offers an excellent product on their A350's, and in my opinion is better than CX, but are usually are substantially cheaper. Primarily due them being quite unknown in the UK market and Gatwick not being able to offer the premium prices of Heathrow.
Flown then twice to Australia, and flights have been 90+% full in all classes, but they seem reluctant to increase their five flights a week. I've noticed as they become more established the prices have increased and likely to be there is more demand to fly them and not the need to discount seats.
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: In the sky
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because the plane is leaving full, doesn't necessarily mean the route is a money spinner!
If you do a flight search for routes to Asia or Australia and type in the departing city as just "London" so then it searches all London airports, the pricing for flights for Cathay Pacific flights out of Gatwick will nearly always be cheaper than the Heathrow flights. Usually with a price difference of £20-50 on economy routes, while it isn't a huge difference, when you multiply that by 200+ passengers it makes a big difference, and gives passengers an incentive to fly this route as opposed to the Heathrow option.
Im sure the route is profitable, but the airline probably doesn't want to dilute prices further by offering further capacity. They can continue to offer the LGW option for the more price sensitive passengers wanting to fly CX and in time drive the prices up to match that of Heathrow, and once this is done if demand remains offer the A350-1000 then.
Very similar with China Airlines flying to Taipei, (the Taiwan carrier, not to be confused with the China Mainland carriers), which offers an excellent product on their A350's, and in my opinion is better than CX, but are usually are substantially cheaper. Primarily due them being quite unknown in the UK market and Gatwick not being able to offer the premium prices of Heathrow.
Flown then twice to Australia, and flights have been 90+% full in all classes, but they seem reluctant to increase their five flights a week. I've noticed as they become more established the prices have increased and likely to be there is more demand to fly them and not the need to discount seats.
If you do a flight search for routes to Asia or Australia and type in the departing city as just "London" so then it searches all London airports, the pricing for flights for Cathay Pacific flights out of Gatwick will nearly always be cheaper than the Heathrow flights. Usually with a price difference of £20-50 on economy routes, while it isn't a huge difference, when you multiply that by 200+ passengers it makes a big difference, and gives passengers an incentive to fly this route as opposed to the Heathrow option.
Im sure the route is profitable, but the airline probably doesn't want to dilute prices further by offering further capacity. They can continue to offer the LGW option for the more price sensitive passengers wanting to fly CX and in time drive the prices up to match that of Heathrow, and once this is done if demand remains offer the A350-1000 then.
Very similar with China Airlines flying to Taipei, (the Taiwan carrier, not to be confused with the China Mainland carriers), which offers an excellent product on their A350's, and in my opinion is better than CX, but are usually are substantially cheaper. Primarily due them being quite unknown in the UK market and Gatwick not being able to offer the premium prices of Heathrow.
Flown then twice to Australia, and flights have been 90+% full in all classes, but they seem reluctant to increase their five flights a week. I've noticed as they become more established the prices have increased and likely to be there is more demand to fly them and not the need to discount seats.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ballymena
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see on Gatwick arrivals Garuda appears, although the flights are shown as cancelled. From memory, they were also allocated slots for the winter according to the ACL report. Is it fair to assume from that, that serious consideration must have been given to moving back to Lgw from Lhr?
I have seen Norwegian BKK on arrivals as well, also cancelled.
I have seen Norwegian BKK on arrivals as well, also cancelled.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: warrington,England
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see on Gatwick arrivals Garuda appears, although the flights are shown as cancelled. From memory, they were also allocated slots for the winter according to the ACL report. Is it fair to assume from that, that serious consideration must have been given to moving back to Lgw from Lhr?
I have seen Norwegian BKK on arrivals as well, also cancelled.
I have seen Norwegian BKK on arrivals as well, also cancelled.
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Italy
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Garuda Indonesia
I see on Gatwick arrivals Garuda appears, although the flights are shown as cancelled. From memory, they were also allocated slots for the winter according to the ACL report. Is it fair to assume from that, that serious consideration must have been given to moving back to Lgw from Lhr?
I have seen Norwegian BKK on arrivals as well, also cancelled.
I have seen Norwegian BKK on arrivals as well, also cancelled.
It's not that LHR is not working and that LGW will be better, it's that London isn't working for them. Too many more competitive options, this service is a mix of vanity and political, but worse than that, the B77W was just WAAAAY too big. I doubt the change to the A339 will generate a profit but it may scale back the losses a tad. Moving back to LGW wouldn't help matters one little bit, it may be operationally somewhat cheaper but that's not enough.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Gatters
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gatwick Airport Newsfeed Drivel
Two new feeds pushed out from LGW this week.
1) https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...nace-rc8w8mdt6
Surely- great but what about autonomous drones. No operator required. Can't be shot down because they fly bloody fast and alter directions! Money wasted.
2) https://news.sky.com/story/gatwick-a...elays-11849195
Gatwick Airport trials new boarding methods to cut delays- Great if everyone travelling solo! Airlines would have done this 30 years ago.
Some new 25 year old SENIOR manager in a new role?
1) https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...nace-rc8w8mdt6
Surely- great but what about autonomous drones. No operator required. Can't be shot down because they fly bloody fast and alter directions! Money wasted.
2) https://news.sky.com/story/gatwick-a...elays-11849195
Gatwick Airport trials new boarding methods to cut delays- Great if everyone travelling solo! Airlines would have done this 30 years ago.
Some new 25 year old SENIOR manager in a new role?
2) https://news.sky.com/story/gatwick-a...elays-11849195
Gatwick Airport trials new boarding methods to cut delays- Great if everyone travelling solo! Airlines would have done this 30 years ago.
Some new 25 year old SENIOR manager in a new role?
Gatwick Airport trials new boarding methods to cut delays- Great if everyone travelling solo! Airlines would have done this 30 years ago.
Some new 25 year old SENIOR manager in a new role?
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Italy
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New long haul routes
Any thoughts on possible new airlines and long haul routes destined for LGW in the near future? Based on the W19 ACL report, I recall seeing PR/Philippine Airlines being allocated slots at LGW, but find it unlikely that they would give up LHR in exchange for LGW, given that they spent years getting their hands on the slots.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts