Gatwick-2
Rubbish.
If they were a silly herd then easyJet and Ryanair would be at LHR and Wizz would be joining them.
You keep banging this drum, it’s insane. Do you really think Delta, US Airways, Air New Zealand, Air China, Phillipine Airlines, China Eastern, NWA, American, Delta, Virgin Atlantic etc, all of whom have moved out of LGW to LHR and are in a position to compare like for like revenue and profitabilty on London-XYZ didn’t have a genuine view that LHR is the better option for their operation? And likewise LGW is better for FR, EZY etc?
LHR is not stopping anyone opening long haul at LGW. It’s simply LHR has a critical mass of connections that makes it a better bet for many airlines. Long haul at LGW is one of three things.
1) Long haul point to point leisure
2) Long haul LHR overflow, i.e. Cathay Pacifi, China Airlines, Air China and China Eastern
3) Emirates and Qatar, with EK flying less F and more high density A380s.
The proposed DL/VS new services fell into pot 1. They’re not going to happen now. Perhaps Delta should close LHR and move to LGW if they get a good deal? In your concept, that would work, except there’s no way that’s going to happen as a large % of the base would stay at LHR and fly with someone else. It’s a clearly identifiable attribute in the specific London market and has been since LGW opened. I mean Adam Thomson said as much!!!
If they were a silly herd then easyJet and Ryanair would be at LHR and Wizz would be joining them.
You keep banging this drum, it’s insane. Do you really think Delta, US Airways, Air New Zealand, Air China, Phillipine Airlines, China Eastern, NWA, American, Delta, Virgin Atlantic etc, all of whom have moved out of LGW to LHR and are in a position to compare like for like revenue and profitabilty on London-XYZ didn’t have a genuine view that LHR is the better option for their operation? And likewise LGW is better for FR, EZY etc?
LHR is not stopping anyone opening long haul at LGW. It’s simply LHR has a critical mass of connections that makes it a better bet for many airlines. Long haul at LGW is one of three things.
1) Long haul point to point leisure
2) Long haul LHR overflow, i.e. Cathay Pacifi, China Airlines, Air China and China Eastern
3) Emirates and Qatar, with EK flying less F and more high density A380s.
The proposed DL/VS new services fell into pot 1. They’re not going to happen now. Perhaps Delta should close LHR and move to LGW if they get a good deal? In your concept, that would work, except there’s no way that’s going to happen as a large % of the base would stay at LHR and fly with someone else. It’s a clearly identifiable attribute in the specific London market and has been since LGW opened. I mean Adam Thomson said as much!!!
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Outer London
Age: 43
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aside from critical mass of connections and any real or perceived prestige associated with LHR, it’s sinply in a much better location than LGW.
LGW is tucked into the south-east. You would have to drive past LHR from vast swathes of the southern half of England and beyond just to reach LGW.
LGW is tucked into the south-east. You would have to drive past LHR from vast swathes of the southern half of England and beyond just to reach LGW.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Oban, Scotland
Posts: 1,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But why would you drive? You can reach LGW by train from a wide area of southern England.
As I've said before, LHR has the airlines over a barrel. They can't afford to lose slots from lack of use because in normal times they are so valuable. (In the final days of British Midland their LHR slots were their main asset) So they move everything to LHR and rely on being able to get back slots at LGW when they need them.
As I've said before, LHR has the airlines over a barrel. They can't afford to lose slots from lack of use because in normal times they are so valuable. (In the final days of British Midland their LHR slots were their main asset) So they move everything to LHR and rely on being able to get back slots at LGW when they need them.
But why would you drive?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Outer London
Age: 43
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funnily enough LHR also has a railway station. And an underground. But I’d assume a number do drive in any case or they wouldn’t bother having car parks.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Oban, Scotland
Posts: 1,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the pedants out there, many would also have to bypass LHR on the train or coach to reach LGW. Oh, and the world doesn’t end in southern England. Potential reach particularly for long haul routes goes far into the Midlands, south-west and Wales. Even the north for particularly niche travel plans.
Funnily enough LHR also has a railway station. And an underground. But I’d assume a number do drive in any case or they wouldn’t bother having car parks.
Funnily enough LHR also has a railway station. And an underground. But I’d assume a number do drive in any case or they wouldn’t bother having car parks.
But of course the North famously begins at Watford.
And LHR only has trains to central London.
Granted, LHR is a major coach hub. People get the coach there simply to change to a coach somewhere else.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ballymena
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipness. You are a strong supporter of the case for Lhr and I respect that. I would like to add a few points. In every person are prejudices and that includes both of us. Those prejudices, whether we like to believe it or not, affects our decision making. One of those instincts/behavior is herd mentality, others are doing it, we better do it as well. If you believe that the top deciders in airlines are immune from this, think again. At the end of the day, most airlines offer very similar services, they largely copy each other.
You mention Adam Thomson, how long ago is that going back? Maybe 40 years say? Think of the way the world has changed in that time, massive changes, yet one thing that has hardly moved in that time is the dominance of Lhr over Lgw. Why is that? How big a part does airline alliances play in that? Or loyalty programmes? Or big corporate travel firms/deals? The elevation of Lhr over Lgw under BAA ownership? Those higher yields out of Lhr, higher fares for us? The list goes on. And it is in the interest of all concerned to keep it that way. And if you can keep moving airlines into Lhr for that extra yield you in turn deny Lgw the opportunity to ever be successful at establishing a good long-haul network or building yield. Of ever establishing good transfer opportunities as they are only ever dealing with a disparate group of airlines.
You mention why Easy and Wizz have not moved in on Lhr. It might be a case of not yet. There could be any number of reasons why, doesn't mean it would never happen. However, I'm not that sure Lhr wants a Wizz in their midst.
You mention Adam Thomson, how long ago is that going back? Maybe 40 years say? Think of the way the world has changed in that time, massive changes, yet one thing that has hardly moved in that time is the dominance of Lhr over Lgw. Why is that? How big a part does airline alliances play in that? Or loyalty programmes? Or big corporate travel firms/deals? The elevation of Lhr over Lgw under BAA ownership? Those higher yields out of Lhr, higher fares for us? The list goes on. And it is in the interest of all concerned to keep it that way. And if you can keep moving airlines into Lhr for that extra yield you in turn deny Lgw the opportunity to ever be successful at establishing a good long-haul network or building yield. Of ever establishing good transfer opportunities as they are only ever dealing with a disparate group of airlines.
You mention why Easy and Wizz have not moved in on Lhr. It might be a case of not yet. There could be any number of reasons why, doesn't mean it would never happen. However, I'm not that sure Lhr wants a Wizz in their midst.
Bottom line is there’s no room for a succesful LHR and LGW doing the same thing. They’re too close, so airlines have to make a choice rather than serve both. Those who do serve both in long haul have a different LGW offering unless they’re simply waiting for a LHR slot.
Emirates have fewer First seats, Qatar fly B788s, something LHR no longer sees. Cathay flew the A350, something LHR now gets but LGW has lost CX for the forseeable future.
Good point about alliances, but I quite like through checking of baggage and benefits from partners. It works well and makes money for the airlines and allows many different options from A to B. LGW has never done well with alliance members, even Lufthansa tried and gave up recently.
Finally I mention Adam Thompson to make the point that no major long haul carrier has ever actively wanted to be at LGW rather than LHR. Only low cost long haul like Laker and Norwegian advocated LGW as a plus, neither got rich in doing so. Even Virgin got their core long haul to LHR the first chance they could in 1991, leaving only the beach fleet behind. You guys can’t be seriously moaning about lack of choice when LHR has more long haul than any other London airport!
It’s not Gatwick that needs to build a decent long haul network, it’s one of their airline customers choosing to. Norwegian decided to go all in on the loco side, didn’t end well. Virgin moved out, BCAL went bust, BA lost millions. So given to alliance carrier is going to kill their own connectivity by moving LHR->LGW, and not one major carrier will do so, what airline(s) do you see being the future at Gatters? Personally I think Wizz could do well. Ryanair may even move into some of the gaps. But long haul is overwhelmingly going to go to LHR. Perhaps Norwegian will come back but even if they do, the legacy carriers will be offering cut throat deals just to get people flying so I don’t see a route to profitability that way. Gatwick’s future is low cost or point to point leisure and ME3 (well 2/3). And there’s nothing wrong with that, but “glory days” ended the day LHR was opened up again back in 1991.
Emirates have fewer First seats, Qatar fly B788s, something LHR no longer sees. Cathay flew the A350, something LHR now gets but LGW has lost CX for the forseeable future.
Good point about alliances, but I quite like through checking of baggage and benefits from partners. It works well and makes money for the airlines and allows many different options from A to B. LGW has never done well with alliance members, even Lufthansa tried and gave up recently.
Finally I mention Adam Thompson to make the point that no major long haul carrier has ever actively wanted to be at LGW rather than LHR. Only low cost long haul like Laker and Norwegian advocated LGW as a plus, neither got rich in doing so. Even Virgin got their core long haul to LHR the first chance they could in 1991, leaving only the beach fleet behind. You guys can’t be seriously moaning about lack of choice when LHR has more long haul than any other London airport!
It’s not Gatwick that needs to build a decent long haul network, it’s one of their airline customers choosing to. Norwegian decided to go all in on the loco side, didn’t end well. Virgin moved out, BCAL went bust, BA lost millions. So given to alliance carrier is going to kill their own connectivity by moving LHR->LGW, and not one major carrier will do so, what airline(s) do you see being the future at Gatters? Personally I think Wizz could do well. Ryanair may even move into some of the gaps. But long haul is overwhelmingly going to go to LHR. Perhaps Norwegian will come back but even if they do, the legacy carriers will be offering cut throat deals just to get people flying so I don’t see a route to profitability that way. Gatwick’s future is low cost or point to point leisure and ME3 (well 2/3). And there’s nothing wrong with that, but “glory days” ended the day LHR was opened up again back in 1991.
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Italy
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
North terminal
Morning all,
I have a question - was it the original intention that the North terminal would be exclusive to British Airways? I remember watching an LGW documentary recently, and John King (then head of BA) had expressed desire to BAA that BA would be the sole operator in the (then to be built) North, leaving all other airlines in the South terminal, a bit like LHR terminal 5.
Also, given that Norwegian are due to recommence long haul operations from LGW in December, what is the likelihood of the South terminal being reopened? CX will also be returning to LGW from October, so it will be interesting to see whether LGW reverts to dual terminal operations or continues to consolidate all flights in the North terminal.
I have a question - was it the original intention that the North terminal would be exclusive to British Airways? I remember watching an LGW documentary recently, and John King (then head of BA) had expressed desire to BAA that BA would be the sole operator in the (then to be built) North, leaving all other airlines in the South terminal, a bit like LHR terminal 5.
Also, given that Norwegian are due to recommence long haul operations from LGW in December, what is the likelihood of the South terminal being reopened? CX will also be returning to LGW from October, so it will be interesting to see whether LGW reverts to dual terminal operations or continues to consolidate all flights in the North terminal.
Last edited by JW95; 31st Aug 2020 at 09:48.
North opened in 1988, the same year BA bought BCAL, giving them a major presence at LGW. In the planning stages, there's no way BA would have filled even the stage one North Terminal, (todays Pier 5, albeit less three of it's current gates). British Airtours were based but BA had a few Channel Islands routes and, ISTBC, no based heavies.
I don't believe CX, who are currently operating one out of their five daily LHR slots will open LGW in Oct, stranger things have happened but they may well open bookings and simply bank the cash and move the flight to LHR. As for Norwegain opening transatlantic long haul in DECEMBER in the deepest collapse in traffic in peacetime, probably not IMHO.
I don't believe CX, who are currently operating one out of their five daily LHR slots will open LGW in Oct, stranger things have happened but they may well open bookings and simply bank the cash and move the flight to LHR. As for Norwegain opening transatlantic long haul in DECEMBER in the deepest collapse in traffic in peacetime, probably not IMHO.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: The EU
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2016
Location: The EU
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or, like more or less every other airline, they’ll start with a skeleton schedule and build up to whatever demand there is during the busier period. Covid aside, I don’t think they’ll struggle to fill a daily JFK and a few weekly LAX/MCO at any time of year. Not taking advantage of the Christmas peak would be daft.
That’s the second time you’ve been vocal about their plan to restart a few routes in (mid) December, and I’m wondering what issue you have with that? You are aware of that little event towards the end of December called Christmas, aren’t you? Covid aside, mid December to 2/3 January is one of the busiest travel periods of the year.
People will not travel IF there is any likelihood that they will be required to quarantine for 2 weeks on return. People are becoming risk averse with many people being completely paranoid, expecially with constant Govt edicts regarding a 2nd wave and how bad things will be in the winter.
That’s the second time you’ve been vocal about their plan to restart a few routes in (mid) December, and I’m wondering what issue you have with that? You are aware of that little event towards the end of December called Christmas, aren’t you? Covid aside, mid December to 2/3 January is one of the busiest travel periods of the year.
My issue is that airlines are pocketing bookings for cash flow with, in my view, little honest intent of operating the flights. The get out clause being they can consolidate to LHR easily in this case. There's hope, and then there's false hope.
COVID aside? Yeah, let me know how? Somehow.
My issue is that airlines are pocketing bookings for cash flow with, in my view, little honest intent of operating the flights. The get out clause being they can consolidate to LHR easily in this case. There's hope, and then there's false hope.
My issue is that airlines are pocketing bookings for cash flow with, in my view, little honest intent of operating the flights. The get out clause being they can consolidate to LHR easily in this case. There's hope, and then there's false hope.
Good point, but part of something vs. all of nothing given desperate times. It's no accident Virgin are really slow at refunding people.....
In the case of Cathay at LGW, they'd not be refunding all that many as the LHR option would be very similar timings on a mid-day ex London. It's not like there's a world of other options anymore.
In the case of Cathay at LGW, they'd not be refunding all that many as the LHR option would be very similar timings on a mid-day ex London. It's not like there's a world of other options anymore.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: IOM
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some airlines considered riskier may have much worse agreements.
