Heathrow-3
pamann
I'm a marketing analyst, I go on the data we deal with. I support the UK having a functioning world class hub airport with global reach. If that makes me a "fanboy" in your book I can live with it. It's a very British local mindset we have where people think about "fair share of traffic distribution", many of whom have never worked in the brutal realities of a commercial environment.
I defer to Southside Bobby in his knowledge of Stansted. I am limited having used it numerous times over 15 years and watched as Continental tried and failed, American failed twice, Eos and Maxjet both collapsed but somehow I have an agenda. "Personally interpreted analytics" wins the WordSalad of The Day Award for Saturday.
Actually if STN was the hot commodity peope claim, AirUK would have made it work (I wish they had), Buzz would have been a triumph and Lufthansa and SAS would not only have stayed but built their networks. Good grief lads even easyJet struggled! Bottom line is, Ryanair and Stansted go hand in hand, it's that sort of airport. Think Oakland vs. San Francisco, Hahn vs. Frankfurt-Main. Use the place, love Ryanair, am NOT anti-Stansted, just realistic.
I'm a marketing analyst, I go on the data we deal with. I support the UK having a functioning world class hub airport with global reach. If that makes me a "fanboy" in your book I can live with it. It's a very British local mindset we have where people think about "fair share of traffic distribution", many of whom have never worked in the brutal realities of a commercial environment.
I defer to Southside Bobby in his knowledge of Stansted. I am limited having used it numerous times over 15 years and watched as Continental tried and failed, American failed twice, Eos and Maxjet both collapsed but somehow I have an agenda. "Personally interpreted analytics" wins the WordSalad of The Day Award for Saturday.
Actually if STN was the hot commodity peope claim, AirUK would have made it work (I wish they had), Buzz would have been a triumph and Lufthansa and SAS would not only have stayed but built their networks. Good grief lads even easyJet struggled! Bottom line is, Ryanair and Stansted go hand in hand, it's that sort of airport. Think Oakland vs. San Francisco, Hahn vs. Frankfurt-Main. Use the place, love Ryanair, am NOT anti-Stansted, just realistic.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: bishops stortford herts
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOF...It won`t do...it won`t do.
This must becoming ever so slightly annoying for the LHR thread.
Perhaps come up on the STN thread then with the answers to the quiz below.
It is quite telling that a marketing analyst (always looking in the rear view mirror) can omit then the reasons for his listed "failures" at STN ? maybe it does not fit the personally applied spin perhaps.
As yes the agenda is LHR specific me thinks you gave much away over on the MAN thread.
Recently you appeared to be calling for the nationalization of BAW to save it or was that for LHR`s benefit...or for friends as indicated earlier?.
If LHR IS the right airport the gaps caused by severe BAW cutbacks or worse will/would be filled by other equally able airline services right?
Anyway...please fill in the gaps...
STN...
Continental...Reason for leaving was......
AA/ORD...Reason for leaving was.....
AA/JFK...Reason for leaving was...
Maxjet...One of the causes for collapse was.....
EOS...Causes of collapse were.....
Air UK...Causes for ultimate demise were...
Buzz...Similar question...
Blimey you have been going it on the historical front...Lufthansa...Reason for leaving.....
SAS...Same question applies but will accept varied answers as were back operating services before the pandemic...well given you a clue there.
Cannot believe you have included EZY too...Well go on then analysis please...give you a clue it was not a "struggle" as stated.
BTW...the "brutal realities of a commercial environment" are surely experienced by all workers...come off it!.
Apologies to the LHR thread.
Happy BST
This must becoming ever so slightly annoying for the LHR thread.
Perhaps come up on the STN thread then with the answers to the quiz below.
It is quite telling that a marketing analyst (always looking in the rear view mirror) can omit then the reasons for his listed "failures" at STN ? maybe it does not fit the personally applied spin perhaps.
As yes the agenda is LHR specific me thinks you gave much away over on the MAN thread.
Recently you appeared to be calling for the nationalization of BAW to save it or was that for LHR`s benefit...or for friends as indicated earlier?.
If LHR IS the right airport the gaps caused by severe BAW cutbacks or worse will/would be filled by other equally able airline services right?
Anyway...please fill in the gaps...
STN...
Continental...Reason for leaving was......
AA/ORD...Reason for leaving was.....
AA/JFK...Reason for leaving was...
Maxjet...One of the causes for collapse was.....
EOS...Causes of collapse were.....
Air UK...Causes for ultimate demise were...
Buzz...Similar question...
Blimey you have been going it on the historical front...Lufthansa...Reason for leaving.....
SAS...Same question applies but will accept varied answers as were back operating services before the pandemic...well given you a clue there.
Cannot believe you have included EZY too...Well go on then analysis please...give you a clue it was not a "struggle" as stated.
BTW...the "brutal realities of a commercial environment" are surely experienced by all workers...come off it!.
Apologies to the LHR thread.
Happy BST
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Outer London
Age: 43
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Elements of both sides are right or wrong.
There is a strong market for premium within the direct catchment of all London’s airports, certainly enough to sustain some basic routes. They all have wealthy catchments and high-value business. That is just fact and cannot be disputed. Heathrow ‘supporters’ are going to have to concede that one.
Stansted ‘supporters’ are going to have to accept many markets are both inbound and outbound, Heathrow will always have the advantage not just because of legacies and alliances but because it’s the most famous internationally. That doesn’t mean routes and airlines can’t work at STN (or LGW), but that for many of the airlines we’d be talking about overall they gain many advantages being at LHR. Sadly there aren’t too many that are able or could justify running two or more London routes, Emirates works because of the nature of the operation.
Whilst STN is considered by some inferior, there have been examples of airlines moving away particularly to LGW and finding it wasn’t the pot of gold in comparison they hoped for.
There is a strong market for premium within the direct catchment of all London’s airports, certainly enough to sustain some basic routes. They all have wealthy catchments and high-value business. That is just fact and cannot be disputed. Heathrow ‘supporters’ are going to have to concede that one.
Stansted ‘supporters’ are going to have to accept many markets are both inbound and outbound, Heathrow will always have the advantage not just because of legacies and alliances but because it’s the most famous internationally. That doesn’t mean routes and airlines can’t work at STN (or LGW), but that for many of the airlines we’d be talking about overall they gain many advantages being at LHR. Sadly there aren’t too many that are able or could justify running two or more London routes, Emirates works because of the nature of the operation.
Whilst STN is considered by some inferior, there have been examples of airlines moving away particularly to LGW and finding it wasn’t the pot of gold in comparison they hoped for.
If I were a frequent business flyer, I would choose an airline with a turn-up-and-go number of flights - imagine I live in NYC - if the traffic on the M4 is better than usual, I get home an hour earlier than on my booked flight. With one flight daily from STN, if the traffic on the M11 is a bit bad, I get to wait a whole day for the next flight my ticket is valid on.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lestah
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
c52
Depends who you work for. As a frequent business traveller myself working for a very big U.S Corp, the default travel setting on the internal booking system in the UK is LHR. A couple of years ago I did a lot of travel to the Nordics. Standard policy use LHR. Despite much cheaper travel elsewhere, eg RYR STN, approval was required to book STN and I couldn't be bothered waiting for that. Same with hotel bookings. When colleagues are coming in from the States, they will not look beyond LHR as the arrival point.
Depends who you work for. As a frequent business traveller myself working for a very big U.S Corp, the default travel setting on the internal booking system in the UK is LHR. A couple of years ago I did a lot of travel to the Nordics. Standard policy use LHR. Despite much cheaper travel elsewhere, eg RYR STN, approval was required to book STN and I couldn't be bothered waiting for that. Same with hotel bookings. When colleagues are coming in from the States, they will not look beyond LHR as the arrival point.
Last comment on this. Stansted exists in a London market which was dominated by the original London Airport from the 1940s. Gatwick and Stansted came much later as commercial airports for London and despite repeated government attempts to "level out" failed because London as an accident of empire and critical route mass of BA/BEA as well as the legacy long haul carriers like QANTAS, Pan Am, TWA et al marked out LHR as London's airport for long haul. Anyone from 1977 who flew from LGW on long haul was forced to by the British government when LHR was declared full. Branson stated that without the competitive advantage of LHR, VS would have collapsed in Gulf War 1.
Anyone repeating the mantra that LGW has a wealthy catchment area of Sussex and likewise Stansted with Cambridge is seeing one favourable point in isolation. But both airports are subsumed in the wider London market and most long haul into London wants Heathrow, as that puts you on a level playing field with the airlines you compete with because higher yields can be accomplished at LHR. LGW/STN can compete on price, which is why BA have a hand me down fleet with limited and now zero First offering in mainly leisure markets. The LHR/LGW thing is like Norwegian at Oakland, but even they realised that although they did well at OAK, to better compete in the market, they needed to be at the main airport, SFO. Given a 3rd runway at LHR, I suspect they'd have come to the same conclusion and moved from LGW to LHR. Likewise Westjet compete with Air Canada at LHR and in order to achieve this better they apply for slots at LHR and want to close LGW. China Airlines compete with EVA to TPE and in order to achieve this, they move from LGW to LHR. In the overwhelming majority of cases, almost none of the non UK long haul airlines at LGW in 2020 would choose to be there if they could be at LHR.
There are some key exceptions, EK and QR, and Cathay Pacific. But even CX won't be back until they're using all 5 of their LHR slots. So it's not about the Gatwick or Stansted catchment area, it's all about the London market. Aircraft are mobile assets. Here's a real example.
Delta
ATL-LGW x 1 no limited feed
ATL-LHR x 2 with feed
Outcome, the remaining LGW flight was moved to LHR as it was the lowest performing of the London services.
NWA
DTW-LHR and DTW-LGW operated side by side when NWA got into LHR and media said they were commited to LGW. As soon as performance could be compared LGW was closed.
US Airways
As NWA above
American
LGW-DFW closed and moved to LHR after 30 years without a second thought or a decent farewell. Have not looked back since.
STN-JFK was in my view a strategic spoiler to kill Maxjet /EOS but the point stands, they compared real data with STN-JFK against their competing/complimentary LHR-JFK and acted accordingly. If there had been a local goldmine of wealth that AA could have served out of STN, they would have stayed. The idea that they do as BA tell them is just something people like to say, much like at MAN. AA are big enough to tell BA where to go if it conflicts with their own commercial interests.
Continental
Served BRS and LGW.
BRS fell into the LHR catchment area due M4 corridor and was closed, the same aircraft flying 10 mins further made way more money. LGW was briefly hung onto but after decades was closed and moved to LHR.
All of these airlines serve long haul into London and can compare numbers between competing airports and came to the decision that the most competitive and profitable position to be in was to serve London's main airport and not one in West Sussex or Essex. It's about the long haul international market to/from London, less so about selected pockets of wealth around Cambridge and towards the South Coast. Heathrow DOMINATES the market in such a way that not being there puts you at a competitive disadvantage if you're elsewhere. JetBlue don't WANT to serve STN or LGW. Westjet don't want to stay at LGW. So outwith the honourable exceptions listed above, you need to compete in market as best you can, and for long haul, that's LHR.
Or maybe JetBlue will fly STN-JFK thrice daily and make millions of dollars. It could be the next big thing. Like MaxJet.
Anyone repeating the mantra that LGW has a wealthy catchment area of Sussex and likewise Stansted with Cambridge is seeing one favourable point in isolation. But both airports are subsumed in the wider London market and most long haul into London wants Heathrow, as that puts you on a level playing field with the airlines you compete with because higher yields can be accomplished at LHR. LGW/STN can compete on price, which is why BA have a hand me down fleet with limited and now zero First offering in mainly leisure markets. The LHR/LGW thing is like Norwegian at Oakland, but even they realised that although they did well at OAK, to better compete in the market, they needed to be at the main airport, SFO. Given a 3rd runway at LHR, I suspect they'd have come to the same conclusion and moved from LGW to LHR. Likewise Westjet compete with Air Canada at LHR and in order to achieve this better they apply for slots at LHR and want to close LGW. China Airlines compete with EVA to TPE and in order to achieve this, they move from LGW to LHR. In the overwhelming majority of cases, almost none of the non UK long haul airlines at LGW in 2020 would choose to be there if they could be at LHR.
There are some key exceptions, EK and QR, and Cathay Pacific. But even CX won't be back until they're using all 5 of their LHR slots. So it's not about the Gatwick or Stansted catchment area, it's all about the London market. Aircraft are mobile assets. Here's a real example.
Delta
ATL-LGW x 1 no limited feed
ATL-LHR x 2 with feed
Outcome, the remaining LGW flight was moved to LHR as it was the lowest performing of the London services.
NWA
DTW-LHR and DTW-LGW operated side by side when NWA got into LHR and media said they were commited to LGW. As soon as performance could be compared LGW was closed.
US Airways
As NWA above
American
LGW-DFW closed and moved to LHR after 30 years without a second thought or a decent farewell. Have not looked back since.
STN-JFK was in my view a strategic spoiler to kill Maxjet /EOS but the point stands, they compared real data with STN-JFK against their competing/complimentary LHR-JFK and acted accordingly. If there had been a local goldmine of wealth that AA could have served out of STN, they would have stayed. The idea that they do as BA tell them is just something people like to say, much like at MAN. AA are big enough to tell BA where to go if it conflicts with their own commercial interests.
Continental
Served BRS and LGW.
BRS fell into the LHR catchment area due M4 corridor and was closed, the same aircraft flying 10 mins further made way more money. LGW was briefly hung onto but after decades was closed and moved to LHR.
All of these airlines serve long haul into London and can compare numbers between competing airports and came to the decision that the most competitive and profitable position to be in was to serve London's main airport and not one in West Sussex or Essex. It's about the long haul international market to/from London, less so about selected pockets of wealth around Cambridge and towards the South Coast. Heathrow DOMINATES the market in such a way that not being there puts you at a competitive disadvantage if you're elsewhere. JetBlue don't WANT to serve STN or LGW. Westjet don't want to stay at LGW. So outwith the honourable exceptions listed above, you need to compete in market as best you can, and for long haul, that's LHR.
Or maybe JetBlue will fly STN-JFK thrice daily and make millions of dollars. It could be the next big thing. Like MaxJet.
Paxing All Over The World
The M4 Corridor has been built up for over 50 years. Many international companies established their UK offices based on access to LHR. Domestic property in the LHR catchment carries a premium for some people who need regular access. Despite no R3, LHR still wins. Lots of folk don't like that but no UK govt has been able to change it,
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: UK
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipness One Foxtrot
true, good post.
for UK originating PAX their airport of departure is pretty much based on location to where they live, flight schedule and price, but as you say people flying INTO the UK want LHR, yourself and someone else recently made an excellent comparison with OAK/SFO, Brits want SFO yet when. I used to work at the airport, locals living in and around San Fran all said to me OAK is so much better, backs up the argument .
LGW for example has always been a waiting room for LHR, and Bermuda II skewed the picture for many years.
EK slightly different as they are (were)?! Feeding vast numbers of UK PAX through a huge hub
LGW, STN, LTN etc all serve decent catchment areas and vast majority of those Brits don’t care which they fly from as long as it’s near home and a good price/flight time but when it comes to people looking to fly to London, different story and also in someways because getting LHR slots is so hard it almost makes it more of a desire for an airline
true, good post.
for UK originating PAX their airport of departure is pretty much based on location to where they live, flight schedule and price, but as you say people flying INTO the UK want LHR, yourself and someone else recently made an excellent comparison with OAK/SFO, Brits want SFO yet when. I used to work at the airport, locals living in and around San Fran all said to me OAK is so much better, backs up the argument .
LGW for example has always been a waiting room for LHR, and Bermuda II skewed the picture for many years.
EK slightly different as they are (were)?! Feeding vast numbers of UK PAX through a huge hub
LGW, STN, LTN etc all serve decent catchment areas and vast majority of those Brits don’t care which they fly from as long as it’s near home and a good price/flight time but when it comes to people looking to fly to London, different story and also in someways because getting LHR slots is so hard it almost makes it more of a desire for an airline
Long haul pre coivd it was always remarkable how much you could save by avoiding LHR - you pay a BIG premium for using it
Paxing All Over The World
The younger you are - the more likely you will use certain carriers for cheap s/h. Also that you will use bus or other means to get to a port that is further away but with a cheaper fare. Parents and friends might take you there. Once you have children - the price goes up (say 2+2) but you are also going to look for a closer port. Aged 18 with a rucksack, taking a coach or crashing on a friends sofa for a night to get a flight at awkward time of day to save money? Easy. With awo adults and two children? with a drive, then a flight, then a drive, noise and air pressure? That changes your priorities.Then, when children have left home and you get older, you might be able to afford to use the big local port, rather than a cheaper distant one.
For the last 40 odd years I have had LTN to the north of me and LHR to the south. LGW is a minimum 90 mins by car and STN about 65. Over the years, I have compared prices of travelling to all of these and on the railiway to BRX and take what is the best I can afford at that time. Lastly, as I get older, we can afford PE and C for long haul. There is one route we have planned and it only goes from LGW early in the morning, so we'll drive down the previous evening with a stay + park at a hotel. If that route was served from LHR - we would use it.
My preference is always LHR as I live close to it and the higher cost of going there is offset by the convenience. I expect that most people go through similar stages of life and calculations depending on their circumstances. There are SO many factors to consider that just saying one airport is good and two airports better (or whatever combination you like) is too simplistic.
For the last 40 odd years I have had LTN to the north of me and LHR to the south. LGW is a minimum 90 mins by car and STN about 65. Over the years, I have compared prices of travelling to all of these and on the railiway to BRX and take what is the best I can afford at that time. Lastly, as I get older, we can afford PE and C for long haul. There is one route we have planned and it only goes from LGW early in the morning, so we'll drive down the previous evening with a stay + park at a hotel. If that route was served from LHR - we would use it.
My preference is always LHR as I live close to it and the higher cost of going there is offset by the convenience. I expect that most people go through similar stages of life and calculations depending on their circumstances. There are SO many factors to consider that just saying one airport is good and two airports better (or whatever combination you like) is too simplistic.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Outer London
Age: 43
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Asturias56
I don’t think this is correct, certainly not for long-haul. Are you comparing like with like? Non-stop is virtually always much more expensive than via somewhere. LHR has the majority of non-stop long-haul flights from the UK. So naturally it would be a lot more expensive. However most of the cheapest long-haul I’ve seen is also from LHR, because it has the bulk of the network carriers.
On short-haul the lowest fares of BA, LH etc don’t come close to FR in particular, so you don’t pay a premium in the true sense. I doubt people use LHR as a ‘treat’, they use it because it’s most convenient.
I don’t think this is correct, certainly not for long-haul. Are you comparing like with like? Non-stop is virtually always much more expensive than via somewhere. LHR has the majority of non-stop long-haul flights from the UK. So naturally it would be a lot more expensive. However most of the cheapest long-haul I’ve seen is also from LHR, because it has the bulk of the network carriers.
On short-haul the lowest fares of BA, LH etc don’t come close to FR in particular, so you don’t pay a premium in the true sense. I doubt people use LHR as a ‘treat’, they use it because it’s most convenient.
A couple of years back we went Business Class to Australia - via Emirates LHR was 25% higher than via Paris including the London - CDG leg on Eurostar
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: bishops stortford herts
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not forgetting the oh so quietly introduced £8.90 charge for each passenger flying to any destination from LHR.
Referred to as a "UK Exceptional Regulatory Charge" it most bizarrely only applies to LHR.
LHR say the charge is helping to fund the baggage system,staff car parks & airline check in desks!!!
And posters have been known to complain about RYR & LCC policies.
Referred to as a "UK Exceptional Regulatory Charge" it most bizarrely only applies to LHR.
LHR say the charge is helping to fund the baggage system,staff car parks & airline check in desks!!!
And posters have been known to complain about RYR & LCC policies.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: The EU
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Asturias56
Given that they were regularly filling six A380s a day, I'd say that's just supply and demand. APD is also £176 for long haul business class out of the UK. It's not a secret that business class fares are far cheaper from an origin in Europe.
Given that they were regularly filling six A380s a day, I'd say that's just supply and demand. APD is also £176 for long haul business class out of the UK. It's not a secret that business class fares are far cheaper from an origin in Europe.
southside bobby
It's a rise in the airport charges to reflect the cost of doing business. If you're narrative makes any sense then STN will benefit enormously as traffic vacates LHR en masse. YYZ has the highest fees in the world and yet YHM still couldn't capitalise. There's an enormous hole in the balance sheet now, charges go up. If they go up too high, other airports will benefit. Not sure why you're objecting, less focus on one hub is what you want.
It's a rise in the airport charges to reflect the cost of doing business. If you're narrative makes any sense then STN will benefit enormously as traffic vacates LHR en masse. YYZ has the highest fees in the world and yet YHM still couldn't capitalise. There's an enormous hole in the balance sheet now, charges go up. If they go up too high, other airports will benefit. Not sure why you're objecting, less focus on one hub is what you want.
Last edited by Skipness One Foxtrot; 30th Mar 2021 at 14:53.
LHR slots for new entrants
It would be nice if we were discussing the recent slot approvals at LHR for new entrants rather than a childlike STN bashing.
Slot's for summer 2021 have been allocated to,
China Airlines (not returning to LGW) "no surprise there".
JetBlue (Boston and New York JFK)
SpiceJet (an extension to the airline's current slot allocation)
WestJet (in addition to remaining at LGW) "for the time being anyway".
As well as,
Uganda Airlines (already commenced)Vistara (an extension to the airline's current slot allocation)
JetBlue still have their LGW slots for summer 2021 but have returned their allocated slots at STN. It's yet to be seen if the airline intends to operate from both LGW and LHR.
Although I don't have a link the information was from ch-aviation.com posted on the 30 March 2021.
Slot's for summer 2021 have been allocated to,
China Airlines (not returning to LGW) "no surprise there".
JetBlue (Boston and New York JFK)
SpiceJet (an extension to the airline's current slot allocation)
WestJet (in addition to remaining at LGW) "for the time being anyway".
As well as,
Uganda Airlines (already commenced)Vistara (an extension to the airline's current slot allocation)
JetBlue still have their LGW slots for summer 2021 but have returned their allocated slots at STN. It's yet to be seen if the airline intends to operate from both LGW and LHR.
Although I don't have a link the information was from ch-aviation.com posted on the 30 March 2021.
You mean Rwandair to Kigali via Brussels?
Stansted is a good airport with a great variety of destinations, I'm a fan of both STN and Ryanair and look forward to using it to the MAX. We're only disagreeing on likely potential, apologies to all.
Stansted is a good airport with a great variety of destinations, I'm a fan of both STN and Ryanair and look forward to using it to the MAX. We're only disagreeing on likely potential, apologies to all.
I'm aware of Rwandair to Kigali via Brussels. As we're all aware of, Rwandair won't be returning to LGW although I believe that it's the airline's intentions to eventually fly non stop to LHR from Kigali.
Uganda Airlines was expected to start Entebbe to LHR on the 28 March 2021 although it hasn't started yet.
Another airline that prior to the pandemic had announced it's intendion on returning to London is Air Tanzania. I'm sure we're be reading more about their intentions within the next few months and I should imagine that they will also be in a position to obtain slots at LHR for their Dar Es Salaam flights.
Uganda Airlines was expected to start Entebbe to LHR on the 28 March 2021 although it hasn't started yet.
Another airline that prior to the pandemic had announced it's intendion on returning to London is Air Tanzania. I'm sure we're be reading more about their intentions within the next few months and I should imagine that they will also be in a position to obtain slots at LHR for their Dar Es Salaam flights.