It does amuse me the rush to move to Lhr by certain airlines. Clearly the everyone else is doing it we better do it as well is well and truly alive at the top of many airlines. Follow the herd. You would think airlines would be managed by more intelligent people, but obviously not. I saw that RwandAir was to operate 1 service into Lhr, not Lgw. What difference will that make? China Airlines is making the move as well. If you want to fly to Tpe on CI, why would you use them because they are going from Lhr, not Lgw. I doubt they will be collecting many transfer pax. The same story applies to several other airlines, like some pax, a massive dose of snobbery at work.

....or the weight of history?

You call it history, I call it herd! Herd instinct is a massive issue that has an impact on decision making, more then we realise.

You call it herd. I call it yield. I assume you’ve never had the chance to look at the yield difference for the same destination LHR vs LGW. it might well shock you.

WW, I appreciate that holds true for some/many routes. But if, for example, RwandAir moves from Lgw to Lhr, why would they suddenly benefit from higher yield? They are the only carrier to operate direct to Kigali from London, so if you want to go there direct, they are the only option, so it should not matter whether it is Lgw or Lhr. Other than the ability of Lhr to operate almost in a monopoly position on LH routes(it looks like they are going to get almost 100% control again), why else would yield go up in the example I have given and there are others?

How many of RwandaAir's pax are originating/terminating in Kigali, and how many are connecting to somewhere else in the region - eg Burundi, Cameroon, Congo or Uganda ? Of those connecting pax, how many would see Ethiopian or Kenyan as a viable alternative airline ?

Because EVA are at LHR and China Airlines know LHR as they used to fly there with A340s. There is also some limited feed available via Skytem partners at LHR, almost zero at LGW. So if there was no difference then they’d stay at LGW, but there is a yield problem at LGW and no one stays too long. Even Emirates offer some A380s with no F out of LGW. There are more Y and fewer F/C seats per aircraft at LGW.

Snobbery would be dropped sharpish if the numbers supported LGW.

For airlines to operate out of LHR must also surely be a much more attractive proposition for passengers originating in other parts of the UK. I am not sure how many extra pax this would generate of course but for example if I wanted to travel to Kigali with Rwandair, I am perfectly happy to travel to LHR from MAN on one of the several BA services each day or even the train if really necessary but getting to LGW, forget it, I wouldn't even entertain the thought of trying to get there ! No flights and train/car journey takes far too long.

If the BA connection is good, then fair enough. I'm not sure of the difference in time if using the train. Man to Euston, short walk to St. P, direct trains to LGW every few minutes; or U to Paddington and H express. Remember the difference in frequency between the plane and the train.

As for the main issue, surely the situation is that BA owns a lot of slots at LHR which are a major asset on their balance sheet. They dare not lose them. So they are moving routes from LGW or leasing them to other airlines that can use them.
The slots at LGW are much less valuable and they reckon that they can get them back when they need them - they might have a deal with LGW.

Do the slot values appear as an explicit item on the balance sheet?

Having used the train from Manchester with the above connections in London I'd have to say that connecting via the shuttle even with a four hour wait at Heathrow for me is much more convenient and trouble free. Granted I live a 15 min drive from Manchester Airport so a taxi is a no brainer for me.

Financially for me there is very little difference between both methods of travel, it's more that as soon as I drop my bags at Manchester I don't see them again until I reach my destination. Using the train means I have to find space on a crowded train to London, then cart it either down the road to St Pancras or down into the tube and again find space on a (less) crowded train. But that's just my experience. For others it could be an hour+ rail journey just to get to an airport with a domestic connection so the railway is more viable...

Slots; I believe there is dispensation granted until the end of the year. About 60% of the slots will need to be used. However, the document originating from the EU is more an advisory but I should think the airlines will jump at that.

You do know you could alight at Milton Keynes avoid the whole town mess, cross platform and get to East Croydon on the Southern service, from their same platform every few minutes down to Gatwick .

it’s pretty painless . However why are you so interested in using a London Terminal from Manchester anyway .

Vast majority indeed far MORE European routes originate quite locally and COVID aside prime US cities were serviced frequently and frankly anywhere else go via Amsterdam .

If it’s a sort of national loyalty to an airline branded British again why its a Pan- European business with the largest single investors being an Qatari sheikh!

Being reported that the LGW-BGI route will move to LHR from the end of the coming winter season. Whilst of course this could be an individual route move in reaction to the Virgin introduction of LHR-BGI.....since it is such a core anchor route for BA Gatwick long haul, is this a sign BA are going to pull up stumps entirely at Gatwick??

Not necessarily as the schedule shows one daily flight from Heathrow and one daily flight from Gatwick instead of the two daily flights being from Gatwick.
Personally I do not believe any shift from Gatwick for all services will be permanent. Gatwick is a lower cost airport to operate from than Heathrow. Furthermore the leisure market may well recover more quickly than the business market and the former is Gatwick’s strength. Willie Walsh said recently it is the kind of market BA needs to retain right now. Not all the 6 million customers BA flies from Gatwick will follow them to Heathrow or be prepared to pay the Heathrow premium especially in lean times. You only have to compare the prices on duplicate routes to see this. BA holiday prices from Gatwick are also very competitive when compared to Heathrow based departures. Many of those passengers will migrate to EasyJet, Ryanair. Tui etc... and maybe permanently.
i think a lot will depend on bookings for Summer 2021. Summer 2020 is a write off and Winter 2020/2021 will be very tough.
The fleet and network may well contract for a couple of years but go completely I’m not sure.
I am no expert just my thoughts.

Forgot to say the move of one daily flight may also be in response to Virgin starting Barbados from Heathrow. In addition they are hoping for connecting passengers from Europe, They need to replace those connecting passengers from Europe for their decimated USA services too.

Just seen on another forum that BA long haul from Gatwick has been profitable for years and Gatwick short haul since about 2014. Of course this means nothing in terms of the future. However as I said above the airport is cheaper to operate from and has a lower staff cost for BA than Heathrow. BA also see Gatwick management as more realistic than that of Heathrow. Well we shall see.

Does amuse me the idea that Lhr is the best airport because of higher yields. I think that some of those who laud those higher yields forget that higher yields for airlines=higher fares for passengers. Not a problem if a big expense account is picking up the cost, different if it is the passenger himself paying or a small business.

Qatar Airways update
 

Some good news... Qatar Airways is bringing forward the resumption of LGW-DOH to the 20th August, instead of late October as previously planned. Will be operating once daily. Hopefully this will mark the start of a (slow) recovery to long haul at Gatwick.

Source: https://www.moodiedavittreport.com/t...twick-flights/