Wasn't Banjul largely self-contained 'fully inclusive' resorts which customers got bussed into and barely left?

As such not really - but there was not a lot to do around the hotels, some of which were remote, and standalone on the beach - as is the new RIU Baobab Hotel in Senegal (Likewise same with Cape Verde hotels)

All-Inclusive had not been invented back then as a product. It was still HB or FB...
There are tourist attractions in The Gambia, and some offbeat tourism.

Montego Bay gained popularity in the 1970's with Thomson Sky Tours which is why Britannia AW got 2 707C's for a bit.
That was very much stay behind the hotel wall and don't go out....
The Mombasa coast beach hotels - same - very popular in it's day - may make a comeback???

Thank you all for your inputs, all very interesting and yes I remember much of what has been talked about. Good memories..

mombasa, now there is a thing. MON used to operate it I think? I certainly remember the days of ASA African Safari Airways operating a weekly charter into LGW from Mombasa with the DC10 then The A310, I think (?) it operated via Basel, it sure if that was always a thing or a tech stop at times.

re Banjul, yes Titan operated the route on behalf of The Gambia experience in 2018/9 I think, 767 was quite frequent, also Enter Air. Passengers mix was always a mix of VFR as well as tourists

I believe there is a meat market not far from the threshold of one of the runways in BJL, which attracts a number of large birds and has resulted in a disproportionally high number of bird strikes, including the 2016 one which nearly wiped out both engines on a TCX A321. After that, Thomas Cook changed their flight times to depart BJL in the late evening once the market had closed - looking at the times of the TUI flights, it seems they’ve done the same.

Off topic but thought that pointless bit of trivia might be of interest.

Mombasa full circle to Dakar
 

772

Always fun to read Trivia and anecdotes on here.

As for MBA Mombasa - always been at first popular with the Germans, Scandinavians, and the Swiss since the 1960's.

Sterling LTU Condor and even Paninternational 1-11 500's flew there,
along with African Safari Airways - call sign Zebra.

Swiss entrepreneur Karl Jakob Rüdin, at the collapse in 1967 of his Globe Air airline after the crash of a Britannia, and irregularities found during the after crash investigation, Rüdin was necessitated to disappear from front lines.
So Kenya, a destination he knew well from his airline back ground, proved best. Rüdin with the help of 'others' money would soon acquire hotels and he made good contacts with the highest Kenyan authorities, such as President Kenyatta and the Coastal Commissioner.
Rudin was interested in creating a complete holiday getaway in Kenya with his Company taking care of everything for his passengers along the way and he founded the tour operator African Safari Club, and they would start with their very own Watamu Beach Hotel, being constructed in the coastal town of Mombasa, followed by the Bahari Beach Hotel, the Silver Beach Hotel and the Silver Star Hotel. From then, nothing stood in his way, and he became one of the big tycoons of Kenya.
Rüdin would form his own airline, African Safari Airways to fly the passengers to the ASC hotels. The airline would use a previously owned Globe Air Bristol Britannia aircraft along with 2 others to launch charter flights from Switzerland, France, Germany and the UK to Mombasa Airport.
Britannia's would continue on to fly to 1972 when they were replaced with larger Douglas DC-8s. African Safari would upgrade these, replacing the smaller DC-8 30 with DC-8 50s and DC-8 63 types.
Business was booming for ASC with more than 60,000 passengers carried to Mombasa a year. At that time, ASC also benefited from the huge hit film "Out of Africa" ​​(1985) which was set mainly in Kenya.
While the airline was small, the African Safari Club was expanding and would own 12 Beach hotels and 5 Safari Lodges and a cruise ship. Unfortunately, this expansion would not be sustainable and the company started to take on huge debts as the Gulf War and oil crisis of the early 1990s drove down the demand for leisure travel. The airline would also have to respond to the fuel-guzzling Douglas DC-8s that would be replaced with an ex-KLM DC-10 30 in 1992.
Internally ASC was seeking ways to solve the company’s increasingly dire financial situation, and so appointed a new CEO in hopes of fixing the tour operator’s financial woes. While hotel property changes would be small, the airline changes would be substantial. The idea of owning more aircraft for African Safari Airways would cease as the DC-10 would be removed from the fleet in 2002 in favour of leasing 2 Airbus A310s from Hapag-Lloyd of Germany. Although African Safari Club would limber on through the 2000s, the company used various asset sales to stay afloat. The situation worsened in 2002 with the Mombasa attacks, and in 2007 when the Kenyans saw a bloody political uprising take place following the Presidential elections which many saw as rigged. The violence across Kenya forced African Safari Club to issue a statement that their resorts were not impacted by the threat of violence and that tourists would be safe on their property. However, the scenes coming from Kenya were more than enough to drive tourists away.
By 2008 African Safari had trimmed their hotels to just nine. The airline was down to one 233-seat Airbus A310, operating with 54,000 passengers per year with a route map similar to the one they started with in the 1960s. As a result of the drop in passengers and the general downturn ASA would be the next asset to be removed. The airline would be suspending charter flights in 2009 and the Airbus A310 would be returned to its lessor, but before this it had started to outsource its MBA flights to airlines such as Monarch and Edelweiss.
Sadly African Safari Club would continue its downward spiral until the entire company collapsed in 2011 and filed for bankruptcy.

Back to Gatwick - Mombasa, sought of on topic, Monarch, Britannia, Caledonian, and Air 2000 all served the hugely popular Gatwick-Mombasa holiday route from the late 1980's with 757.767, and Tristar aircraft mostly all having an en-route stop to refuel.
At that time along with Mombasa, we saw The Maldives, Goa, and Thailand all added to the Gatwick resume of seasonal (winter) exotic charter airline flights, joining long standing Banjul.

In 2002 saw the Mombasa attacks against an Israeli-owned beach hotel and an attempt to shoot down a Boeing 757-300 belonging to Arkia Airlines.
An all-terrain vehicle crashed through a security barrier outside the Paradise Hotel and blew up, killing 13 and injuring 80. At the same time, attackers fired two surface-to-air missiles at an Israeli Arkia 757 charter plane but they missed.
The attacks were believed to be orchestrated by al-Qaeda operatives in Somalia in an attempt to disrupt the Israeli tourist industry to Africa.
The attack was the second al-Qaeda terrorist operation in Kenya, following the bombing of the U.S. embassy in Nairobi in 1998.
Following the attacks, the UN Security Council and other nations condemned them and in 2003 Western countries advised all of their citizens against traveling to Kenya because of the terrorist threat. British Airways stopped flying to NBO and most Charter flights would cease.
This negatively impacted Kenya's economy which was based mostly in the tourism industry, and the Kenyan economy began losing nearly $130 million per week.
To this day stability and security for holidays to Kenya remains uncertain, along with Egypt and Tunisia.

So we come full circle back to the OP about a new Gatwick- Dakar route for TUI Holidays, and the topic of Banjul still sustaining holidays....
BIG Q mark for me.

Great to read the history - but it does seem the pandemic is forcing airlines to re-think / think outside of their normal comfort zones !

Apologies for going a little off topic... Does one have to pay for using the Gatwick "Drop off" Zone even if just passing through and not stopping?

Yes I believe so. Think it’s all done with ANPR cameras.

New easyJet route to Bergamo starting this winter

a route BA launched in 2019, never performed very well and with Milan being the epicentre of the Italian and European covid outbreak loads fell off a cliff very early in February.

im sure knowing EasyJet , they will make a go of it

apologues, 2019 not 2020

I flew LGWBGY with BA Sep 19 well before COVID

apologies, yes 2019 you’re right,

South terminal reopening?
 

With travel restrictions beginning to lift and the negation of quarantine for some amber-listed destinations, does this give slight prospect of LGW reopening the South terminal this year? LHR have just reopened Terminal 3, so there are signs that travel is beginning to recover at long last. That said, it is clear that LGW has been the worst hit of the London airports over the last 18 months, and no doubt LGW are keen to have more clarity on the future of BA's operation here, since they are the biggest user of the South terminal. Am personally hoping it will be reopened soon. I've always enjoyed travelling through the South, and it'll be nice to see more airlines (long and short haul) return to LGW as the UK continues to build back up again RE. air travel. Prior to Covid, the airport was doing very well with a great mix of carriers, so it'll be nice to see LGW flourish again :)

As I said right at the beginning of this thread I an confident that Gatwick will flourish again, even though it make take a bit of time.

Some of those airlines who have managed to get slots at LHR during the pandemic may be edged out of there by the higher costs involved and the established carriers returning to
use their slots more fully. Today I see Loganair will be pulling out of the Isle of Man to LHR route, part of the reason being the higher costs of operating from LHR.
Maybe they should try LGW! I remember Flybe used to operate 4 to 5 flights a day from the Isle of Man to Gatwick. Even when Easyjet entered the route they continued. Both carriers serving slightly different market segments.

As for British Airways we may know more when they announce their results on Friday. They have invested a lot in their facilities at Gatwick in recent times, and were carrying nearly 6 million passengers a year from the airport
pre-pandemic. I am not sure all of those customers will follow them to Heathrow. They had based aircraft of about 45 in the summer months. The airline has said that Gatwick management is more commercially focused than the team at LHR. There must be a great deal to be done! Hopefully we will know soon.
I am sure that BA will take into consideration what happened back in 2008 when they decided not to buy GB Airways. Result, Easyjet swooped and have never looked back! I believe pre-pandemic Easyjet had 60 plus based aircraft.
Personally I believe the airport needs both airlines to them both on their toes!

Generally there was a good mix of operators and route offerings pre-pandemic. Hopefully these days will return eventually.

I believe Virgin Atlantic may also rue the day they decided to pull out completely. I think there will be surging demand for the kind of holidays Virgin Holidays offered from Gatwick at competitive prices.

I am no expert, but just a few of my thoughts.

South will reopen when BA make a meaningful return to LGW. Without BA's sizeable operation and Norwegian's 787s, which accounted for the bulk of South's activity, there's no need for it. They've only just reopened Pier 6 in the North Terminal.

Last Friday was the busiest day in terms of outbound passenger numbers since March 2020, however it was only a few hundred more than the busiest day of last Summer, had fewer flights than the busiest day of last Summer, and was about a fifth of the number of passengers on the equivalent day in 2019. A long way to go.

vectisman

Very much agreed with you good sir! I think China Airlines haven't secured long term slots at LHR (I stand corrected), in which case, we should see them back at LGW for W21, unless things change. I am also hoping that other long haul carriers will return to LGW over the course of time in the short/medium term. Cathay Pacific were doing very well on their HKG route right up to its suspension in February last year. I reckon that CX will opt to get the existing LHR services back up to 5 daily 77Ws first and then look at returning to LGW. This has long been a flagship route for Cathay, and I'm sure demand will build back up again once restrictions are further lifted, in which case, the airline will need more than just its 5 daily LHR 77W flights. So I'm very hopeful that LGW has not seen the last of Cathay.

Regarding British Airways- like you, I am also hopeful that they won't pull the plug on LGW completely. They have invested heavily in their LGW base in recent years, particularly with the relatively recent move to the South Terminal, which makes the terminal stand out as "home" to British Airways in a way North never was. Similarly, the LGW 772 fleet has also recently been reinvigorated and gradually increased in size prior to Covid. Indeed Wilie Walsh has frequently given his preference of LGW over LHR owing to management style and quality of facilities. So I can't see a complete withdrawal. I can see the cost-saving merits a consolidation to LHR could bring to BA, however, I reckon they would be fools to do what VS have done and pull out completely, as that'll just cement EZY's dominance in LGW even further. LHR will, inevitably fill back up again, and airlines like BA and VS will need to think of shifting short and long haul leisure flying back to LGW while keeping the business-orientated services at LHR. So LGW does hold value for both airlines in the long term, and no doubt BA will be factoring this into their operational review. I also agree RE VS- again, withdrawing from LGW made sense from a cost-saving point of view, however, they will find it increasingly harder to get back into Gatwick in a year or two from now if Easyjet and Wizz get their way and expand. In which case, there will be very little, if any slots left for VS to return to.

JW95 - Completely agree. Gatwick is important to BA and switching most Gatwick flights to Heathrow due COVID effect is a temporary measure to be expected to reduce cost. As the BA network at Heathrow continues to recover then BA will return to Gatwick.

I think with COVID hammering aviation, when the 80/20 rule returns there will be slot churn at LHR. It's clear China Airlines, Westjet and jetBlue don't actually want to be at LGW and so I'd suspect they'd snap up any of the available slots. jetBlue taking really sub-optimal LHR slots to just get started shows that much. LGW's future expansion is likely to be Wizz Air focussed more than anything.

Not sure how you draw the conclusion that it's clear Westjet don't want to be at LGW, considering they've continued to operate into Gatwick over the past 18 months despite the fact they could've easily got temporary slots into Heathrow. It's also been said many times that existing users of LGW will not let Wizzair get a significant foothold in LGW, as was evident by Norwegian's slot sale to easyJet, but keep repeating the same thing as you please.

I have just listened to the IAG results podcast question and answer session. A question was asked about Gatwick. Sean Doyle said they were reviewing Summer 2022 at Gatwick. They are in talks with stakeholders.
He also said they had to remain competitive in certain market segments, that he hinted would be even more price sensitive than pre-covid. I take this to mean the leisure and VFR marketS.
This could be hopeful news for Gatwick as it is a lower cost airport to operate from as well as being a more leisure orientated operation.
As I have said above, the Gatwick management is commercially pragmatic(perhaps more so than the management at LHR) and hopefully both airport and airline can see the advantages of a mutually beneficial deal.

curiously despite covid, I heard the travelling domestic connections to euro ‘beach’ routes eg Mykonos etc are going great guns from LHR, levels far higher than short haul LGW. Just shows what more extensive domestic connections can do and the appeal of transfer through T5 LHR for the (slightly more) premium leisure traveller. BA are taking note..

Interesting comment Cabin Crew. Maybe more domestics at Gatwick then. Joking! However it isn't all about the front cabin although that is important.
Also as demand returns and slots become scarcer, (as they will overtime), does a A320 to Mykonos compare to 777 to New York. Some leisure destinations are more premium than others too.
I don't doubt your point but it may depend on destination. BA have also never flown to Mykonos from Gatwick.

Perhaps the clever money is on Wizz to do the Atlantic with 321NEOs? Why break the bank on wide-bodies?

Much as I would like to see Gatwick in S22 running at full capacity and BA returning with their S19 schedule.... I think this is unlikely. Despite the progress with vaccines, much of the world outside N.America/western Europe remains unvaccinated and it will take a long time to achieve vaccination levels compared to the UK. Furthermore, there is the possibility of a new variant emerging, and I imagine after the volatility over S20 and S21 as to which countries are or are not permitted from the UK, passengers are going to be a little bit cautious about spending money only to find they have to cancel to avoid quarantine
S22 is going to be a rebuild-confidence season.... we are unlikely to see a robust and thiriving Gatwick before S23

there are beach routes and there are beach routes, routes such as Mykonos, santorini etc the more niche destinations and ones harder to reach from the regions were always LHR routes even pre covid. The AGP, ALC, FAO etc types are easier from the regions so connections through London is much less attractive, sure BA offer a club product unlike the regions but for. 2 1/2 / 3 hour to somewhere like AGP, connecting rather than direct is not very attractive,also pre covid BA didn’t need feed onto the LGW beach routes as they were filled with Gatwick joiners

also don’t forget that choice of destinations is very limited at the moment so those who are desperate to get away will compromise and go to any destination that they can resulting in higher levels on routes that may not have been as popular before Covid.

Vokes55

Plainly evidenced by the fact they keep applying for LHR slots but didn't get enough to move the whole operation and so stayed for another year at LGW. To compete against Air Canada, their primary competition, they want to move. They're not a loco anymore. easyJet are as big as they're likely to get. That base is mature with a tremendously strong network and frequency. There just isn't the same growth anymore, so frankly, I disagree. But maybe WestJet love Gatwick, are really loyal and won't move like everyone else did, I could be wrong. Perhaps Wizz won't get into LGW after all in numbers, but that just makes it even more orange....

Vokes55

I very much agree with you. It is true that WS has gradually been moving away from its initial LC-orientated strategy since the arrival of their 789 and their new business class product. However, I still reckon they are predominately leisure-focused, in which case, Gatwick works well for them. Plus, let's not forget the value of LGW's catchment area - at least prior to Covid, it was very strong, and I reckon WS sense the value in that. It is the scarcity of suitable long term slots at LHR that is informing the decision to remain at LGW- WS knows that it simply does not have the frequency and scale in order to effectively compete against Air Canada's LHR operation (and thats not mentioning BA's Canadian services, which again are vastly larger in scope compared to what WS can currently offer even if at LHR). My hunch is that WS will remain at LGW, after all, a move to LHR does not by any means guarantee success for every airline.

Westjet were operating two cargo flights a week throughout most of the winter, and are up to the dizzying heights of four passenger flights a week right now. If Ukraine, Pegasus, Jazeera, Rwandair, Blue Air, Vistara, Loganair and just about every Chinese airline could get temporary slots into LHR, I’m sure Westjet could have, especially if they “don’t actually want to be at LGW”.

Pegasus have only been operating into LHR because of Turkey's red-light status, and even then they're still operating freight only into and passenger out of STN. Their focus is still very much on STN and I'm sure that will be the case for some incumbent carriers at LGW too.

Vokes55

The reason they didn't was they expected they'd end up having to run a split LHR/LGW operation as they have four daily flights on a BAU basis and couldn't make the move all at once, or worse move back to LGW entirely when things pick up. But you knew that. 😏 The examples you gave are mostly new entrants at once daily or less. Loganair got special treatment for domestic connectivity. Westjet as a new entrant didn't get enough to move everything in one go.

The fact they consistently keep applying for enough LHR slots to close their LGW operation shows how commited they are to LGW.

JW95

BA's Canadian services are poor. YYC gone, YUL a mere B788, YYZ twice daily and YVR daily. WS want to better compete against Air Canada and to fill the front cabin easier, they want to move to LHR. They can't match Air Canada but they can compete better with BA to Western Canada and YYZ. Your point would be a good one if we were talking about Air Transat, who did try LHR for a few years and are genuinely better fitted and do well at LGW.
Talk of a "Gatwick catchment area" is not helpful IMHO. It's a Canada-London market predominantly here, and for the segment WS seek to grow, LHR makes more sense. That's why they keep trying to leave LGW!

So you’re saying that they didn’t move their less than daily London service to LHR over the past 16 months just in case they couldn’t get slots for the seasonal 737 service to YYT next year and had to keep it at LGW?

If they were as desperate to leave LGW as you suggest, they would’ve moved to LHR over the past year. And if they were as desperate to leave LGW as you suggest, they’d accept a split operation.

Yes that's my understanding, they're understandably reluctant to run a split operation. If they were so keen on Gatwick, please remind me why they keep applying for enough LHR slots to close LGW completely. That's the bit of your argument that baffles me, For example, Norwegian were committed to making LGW a long haul powerhouse, they invested heavily. That's not the case here I think. We'll see what happens

I never said the won’t leave LGW, I replied to your typically anti-LGW remark that they “don’t actually want to be there”. They’ve had plenty of opportunities to move to LHR over the past 16 months but haven’t bothered. And if they “don’t actually want to be there”, they’d move their most important/competitive routes to LHR and run a split operation until they can obtain all the slots they want. They wouldn’t be the first airline to run a split operation between LHR/LGW. They haven’t done either.

Anyone can apply for slots at LHR, it doesn’t cost them anything. Norwegian even obtained slots at LHR.

It has a cost if you want any kind of reasonable number or useable slots. The slots Norwegian got were unusable for any decent route hence they didn’t use them.

There is a significant cost involved in split ops so Westjet could very much want to leave LGW but not be willing to pay double and so just wait until it is able to move completely.

What happened to most long haul airlines who ran split LHR/LGW ops?
NWA, US Airways, Delta? Continental? All ran PR saying they'd still serve LGW, all had comparative nos between the two, all closed LGW. The exception being Cathay which opened LGW again at the peak of LON-HKG traffic which given the current situation in Hong Kong seems to suggest that peak won't be seen again for many a year, so will they need a 6th daily London rotation? I suspect not. Not sure Qatar will be back at LGW or CWL but Emirates will go from strength to strength, but even that is a different sub fleet of low capacity premium cabins and high volume economy on some flights. Suspect Icelandair will be back too but a split operation is not something Westjet want to do from what I understand.

As for my "typically anti Gatwick remark", I'd say I have flown almost as much from LGW as from LHR. Pre T5 I preferred LGW North over LHR T1 every time when flying BA. I have fond memories of what LGW used to have, but the commercial reality is what it is unless government re-regulates. I am genuinely hugely fond of the place but it has, more than most UK airports, changed beyond all recognition for me.

And the worst of it is, jetBlue will move lock, stock and barrell to LHR just as soon as they can. It is what it is, it's ***p for LGW sadly.

Not really sure what your point is. I’m not denying that a split operation would probably result in the whole op moving to LHR, but the fact is that they haven’t even done that yet. Even with the door wide open to them.

BA318

Genuinely intrigued to know what you believe the “significant cost involved” of a split operation is? And what exactly you believe would cost double?

Well you’d need facilities and contracts at both airports. Two sets I assume would mean two costs. You need staff at both destinations. You can no doubt get a better deal at one place being served by four flights a day than one flight at one and two or three at another.

Very few long haul carriers split their London ops. Most that do, did it fairly big with multiple daily flights- Emirates, Qatar, BA and Virgin. I think CX was one of the few that split ops with just a daily flight at the second airport.