GATWICK

[toledoashley]

Berne, Rotterdam, Warsaw...?

[adfly]

According to FT BA are to add LGW-FUE twice weekly from December.

[TCX69]

According to FT BA are to add LGW-FUE twice weekly from December.

Indeed :ok:

BA2700 LGW1430 | FUE1850 3 319
BA2700 LGW1140 | FUE1600 6 320

BA2701 FUE1935 | LGW2345 3 319
BA2701 FUE1645 | LGW2055 6 320

[adfly]

There is talk on a.net of BA having a plan to move all 3 class 772's to LGW along with the associated routes (BKK mentioned also NAS/GCM which are 767 routes?), with the current 4 class routes heading the opposite direction (BDA, BGI + tag ons). That would be an interesting move from BA, but I am unsure if it would work out any better than the existing situation for BA.

[cornishsimon]

What would that achieve ?
I could see the point of moving some of the 3 class routes to LGW as it would free up slots at LHR but the LGW routes (4&3 class ) are at gatters for a reason.


cs

[vectisman]

I tend to agree with Cornishsimon. I think you will find that such talk is speculative tittle tattle.
I can see the 777 fleet being increased at Gatwick in the next year or so but the mix of aircraft at the moment helps keep operations flexible.


V.

[cornishsimon]

Trouble with some of the LHR longhaul routes is the feed.

BKK, NAS/GCM all have connecting traffic, if BA were to move some routes to Gatters I feel that connecting routes also need to be added.


cs

[adfly]

It does seem a little odd, although I would not write it off entirely as it was only mentioned to be 'a plan' in the sense that it is one of many options. I could perhaps see some of the lower yielding and more O&D based 3 class routes (BKK springs to mind) move to LGW to make room for longhaul expansion at LHR but I do agree moving all 3 class 772's does not make all that much sense

[vectisman]

Further to my last post and similar to one posted elsewhere I will add this;


'Some of the mentioned routes need feed and that isn't really available at Gatwick. Unless of course there is really a radical plan!!
However, that I just do not believe is the case. The mix BA has put together both LH and SH is beginning to pay dividends so why risk recent gains?
Of course if in the long term Gatwick got the 2nd runway over Heathrow's 3rd things could radically change.

I had better have a cold shower as I will also be guilty of speculative tittle tattle. Apologies!!!'


V.

[vectisman]

British Airways may also need to think about countering any more possible long haul development by Norwegian. With BA's plans to expand capacity at BA Holidays it may be an idea to look again at places such as the Seychelles and Phuket for example. Ft Lauderdale has already been claimed by Norwegian. Could be interesting.


V.

[Skipness One Echo]

Can someone PM me the link, I cannot see what thread it might be on.

[vectisman]

Skipness One Echo (http://www.pprune.org/members/57530-skipness-one-echo)


I have sent pm with requested link.


V.

[wallp]

vectisman, I agree re BA. I'm surprised they haven't sought to develop more new long haul leisure routes at Gatwick - Thailand - both Bangkok & Phuket, Vietnam - Ho Chi Minh & Hanoi and Seychelles all spring to mind.

[cornishsimon]

I also feel that some additional routes to the USA will work for BA at LGW in a similar way to LAS does.

ie additional capacity on routes where needed provided from LGW without harming the existing LHR rotations.

SFO and LAX could absorb a 3 per week 772 rotation each I'd of thought without any problems. SFO especially seems to be at capacity for the current 2 daily 744s and shunting some of the leisure traffic via LGW would seem sensible to me.


cs

[Skipness One Echo]

Thanks Vectisman, very useful.

I'm surprised they haven't sought to develop more new long haul leisure routes at Gatwick - Thailand - both Bangkok & Phuket, Vietnam - Ho Chi Minh & Hanoi and Seychelles all spring to mind.
Lower yielding leisure routes wherehas LGW has done well on higher end leisure point to point. I suspect they'd drop BKK before moving it to Gatters, the countries in civil war and the F cabin was removed alongwith the overnight timings. Fares to Thailand are not that high at the mo.

Who knows, I wonder how many people remain at BA who actually remember what happen the last time they did this?

[thebeehive]

From summer 2015 BA will move their PLS add-on from LHR (via NAS) to LGW and will operate via ANU on the 772 configured 40/24/216

[EpsilonVaz]

Anyone know why Turkish Airlines flights need leader vehicles to the rwy holding point?

[Tim91]

They've been having some difficulty following the signs and markings on the airfield. :ok:

[CabinCrewe]

...just Turkish difficulties ?;)

[Falcon666]

BBC News - Gatwick Airport baggage delays spark complaints (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28508587)

Oh dear not a sign of things to come for this summer peak! twice in a month!

[LTNman]

Swissport seem to have a staffing issue.

[vectisman]

I have made this comment elsewhere
'Maybe the airlines at Gatwick using Swissport should get together and form their own Handling Company along the lines of Gatwick Handling years ago. It was owned by Dan Air and Laker I believe. I know Monarch are very unhappy with Swissport too.
Sometimes outsourcing can go very wrong!!'

It would be reassuring for the affected airlines to make some public comment about the situation so at least give the impression that they care a little and are working to resolve the problems. By and large it is the airlines who will receive the criticism and negativity (as well as the owners of LGW) as passengers tend to overlook the idea of the handing agent being responsible.


V.

[pwalhx]

Is it not the case of airlines getting what they pay for, if they did indeed club together to form their own handling company I would suggest their costs would go up not down.

[angels]

vectisman - you can see why people blame the airlines. You check in a bag at a desk which has (for example) 'Turkish Airlines' on it. If it doesn't appear at the other end, who do you blame?

The airlines can't wash their hands of this by saying, "We outsourced baggage handling." Pax are going to say, "Why should I pay you extra for baggage when you can't deliver it to me?"

Swissport are not helping their cause by refusing to comment to the Beeb. If they don't watch it they will have a PR disaster on their hands now the summer holidays are upon us.

[vectisman]

I agree with both your comments. Maybe costs would go up but could be balanced in the long term by satisfied passengers returning rather than flying with someone else and less money spent on putting things right after the event.


V.

[angels]

I'm travelling through LGW north tomorrow, will let you know whether my bags accompany me!

I trust the airlines are acutely aware that a passenger says, "EZ lost my luggage," not "Swissport lost my luggage." :}

[PAXboy]

vectismanMaybe costs would go up but could be balanced in the long term by satisfied passengers returning rather than flying with someone else and less money spent on putting things right after the event.I think you'll find the flaw with that idea is that - it requires mgmt to think ahead across the next 5-10 years. British mgmt don't do that. :suspect:

They used to but then the recession of 1989/1992 allowed the money men to get control and become CEOs and other things for which they were not qualified. Now the only concern is this year's bonus.

Lastly, most of the men (and occasional woman) now running the airlines have not worked on the ramp, the check in desk, the cabin and they do not know what it's like. I would lock them in a room with a copy of 'From Worst to First' by Gordon Bethune.

[Skipness One Echo]

Is it possible a lot of this is former BA staff giving it big time to their former employer for palming them off to one of the companies renowned for destroying terms and conditions for ground staff? If I had been with BA for years and found myself booted out and across to Swissport I would be prioritising a lot of other airlines before Big Airways.

[wallp]

Problems with delayed or lost bags are always going to result in complaints to the airport and airlines. They are the 'faces' of the operation as far as passengers are concerned. One of the risks of outsourcing is loss of control no matter what SLA's are agreed. The airport & airline needs to take these problems very seriously and ensure the issue is resolved quickly & effectively.

[T250]

What could be the short-medium term implications on the licence being revoked?

It goes without question that whilst GAL may want to withdraw Swissport's operating licence and stop this repeating all summer, this seems impossible given that Swissport operate on behalf of potentially over 30-40% of the whole airport's flights?! This includes BA, Virgin and Thomson.

Unless there is a rapid buy out and TUPE of all Swissport staff by a rival ground handling company what else can be done? It seems improvements cannot be done or won't be done so therefore drastic action is necessary.

In reality, what can GAL do right now, apart from the continuous apologies and having egg on their face throughout the summer and effectively destroying its campaign for a second runway in the process.

The options seem either let it continue badly, rapidly organise an alternative to Swissport or close the company down and with it over a third of LGW traffic! :ugh:

Quite a catch 22!

[Ramper1]

EZ are handled by Menzies not Swiss port, and are having zero problems with baggage handling at gatwick. The airlines affected are BA, Thomson, Monarch, Mostly.

[Out Of Trim]

This staffing issue is what happens when pay levels are pared to the bone! The turnover of trained staff whom find better alternatives in pay and working conditions will continue until those pay levels are addressed adequately.

As with the Passport slowdown there is a similar slowdown within Disclosure Scotland that check Airport workers for Criminal Record checks etc. I'm told the backlog is something like ten weeks before any new employees can get their Airside pass ID's.

Therefore, I can't see much is going to change in the short term.

The public wanted cheaper flights and they have them, but don't care about the quality of service until they start waiting four hours to collect their baggage!

Oh dear! Never mind. :{

I have no connection with Swissport formerly GroundStar in any way, but can see what is happening at Gatwick on a daily basis.

[True Blue]

I am sure Lgw itself and the airlines will have plenty to say to Swissport this morning. But at the bottom of all of this and most issues with service from airlines now is how much we, the travelling public, are willing to pay. And until pax accept that there is a trade off between service and the price of that ticket, then they are getting what they are paying for.


TB

[PAXboy]

True BlueAnd until pax accept that there is a trade off between service and the price of that ticket, then they are getting what they are paying for.True - but since they have all outsourced to the same company - no single airline can pull it back. If one carrier wanted to get priority treatment? How could that work??

To tackle the whole problem would require Swissport to suggest a change to ALL their clients. But that would not work as all their clients would point to the current contract where Swissport already agreed to certain delivery times!

As others say, we want to pay less and we are getting less, most of modern Britain is based on this. Parliament/NHS/Military/etc.

[Akrotiri bad boy]

Buried somewhere deep in Swissport's contract will be a Service Level Agreement which they are clearly failing to meet. Also buried deep will be the consequences facing Swissport for failing to meet their obligations. The contract manager should now invoke any penalty clauses that Swisport have exposed themselves to for what is in effect breech of contract.

Well, that's today sorted but Swissport have quite clearly been struggling throughout the low and shoulder seasons so it was more than obvious that come peak season this house of cards was going to come tumbling down. The winning bids on contracts of this size are based on cutting not just to the bone but carving into the bone. The winning bidder then trusts to provenance that all will be well and if that isn't the case then the contract manager hasn't got the kahunas to invoke penalties.

I want two heads on my plate for tea tonight:
Swissport's chief of LGW ops for being knowingly involved in a crock, and
GAL's procurement chief for allowing a such an obviously wobbly contract to operate at their airport.
:E

[LN-KGL]

For those of you that want to know; here is a pairing of ground handlers and airlines at Gatwick. This small list is based on information given in the June 2014 performance report here:
Our performance - Gatwick Airport (http://www.gatwickairport.com/business-community/about-gatwick/our-performance/)

Swissport:
Air China, Air Vietnam, Arkefly, British Airways, Caribbean Airlines, flynas, Icelandair, Monarch, Strategic Airlines, TAP Portugal, Thomas Cook, Thomson Airways, Veuling, Virgin Atlantic

Menzies:
Aer Lingus, Air Malta, Aurigny, easyJet, Flybe, Titan Airways, Turkish Airlines

Aviator:
African Safari Airways, airBaltic, Air Europa, Air Transat, Emirates, Meridiana, Norwegian Air Shuttle, Ryanair, Ukraine International Airlines, WOWair

[canberra97]

Well it's been a good few years since African Safari Airways existed :D

[Akrotiri bad boy]

LN
You've just made me angrier:\ The stats in your link prove that Swissport are consistently under performing, how have they got away with it for so long?
The company should be drummed off the airfield, but not before I've had my heads on plates.
It's my tea time and I'm getting hungry:}

[LN-KGL]

I know caberra97, but I found it so cute that Gatwick did this Zebra error (the airline ceased operation in 2009) that I had to write what they wrote.

Akrotiri bad boy, don't be agry at me - I just found the information on the Gatwick website. :8

[True Blue]

Has Monarch dropped Bodrum from Gatwick for S15? Site says Lgw is on sale for S15, but Bodrum is not.

TB

[PAXboy]

Glad I've only got a cabin bag for Saturday morning to BOD.

Akrotiri bad boy has nailed the matter. Companies think they can save money but when the proverbial hits the turbine blades they are left carrying the can to their customers. They think that Service Level Agreements will work but the ONLY thing that gives you control of staff is controlling their pay and security of employment. In my view, contracting out does neither.

One quick example: Some years ago (2006/7, I think) fuel tanker drivers went on strike in what was (I think) illegal secondary action. The company ultimately paying for the drivers to deliver their product had outsourced the contract to a big Italian Company, who had outsourced it to a local UK company. It took several days for that chain of command to made to be made to work and tell the drivers to return.

I saw this trend start in the USA in 1988 (my then employer was doing it) and I didn't like then. Nothing I have seen in 26 years has made me change my mind.

[LTNman]

Monarch have ended their Swissport contract at Gatwick and Manchester

[True Blue]

Will the Norwegian service to Warsaw be operated by a Lgw based aircraft that overnights in Waw? If so, is this another aircraft joining the base?

TB

[Waldo1]

Actually no, the swissport guy should keep his job for doing all he could to keep everyone in their jobs...cull the gal procurement tw*t along with the airline tw*ts for buying an un workable contract...this would send a message out to all in this profession that things need to change...

[LNIDA]

Re WAW that duty will i suspect be what our planning department call a 'short night' or more accurately a split duty, its not the shortest 'short night' i've seen but it something Norwegian routinely do across many bases, the objective is to avoid empty ghost flights departing at midnight, by using the time zones and the fact that far more traffic is inbound to LGW than the other way(it goes back obviously) it can leave early from WAW 07:00 and arrive in London at 08:25 and will have a full days flying planned before it (or another one) heads back to WAW at 19:10

Most routes start off like that then as the loads build up another morning rotation will be added East bound, it's not based in WAW but doesn't night stop in LGW either?????

[BasilBush]

Waldo1

I don't think you can point the finger at GAL procurement. The ground handling companies have no contractual relationship with GAL, other than landlord and tenant type arrangements. Under the 1996 EU directive on ground handling, airport operators are severely limited in their ability to limit the numbers of ground handling companies. If a number of airlines choose to use a particular ground handler, it would be a brave/foolhardy airport operator to try to prevent it.

Clearly the issue is that airlines' natural attempts to reduce costs, coupled with a highly competitive handling market, have led to a situation where Swissport bought a lot of business without adequately resourcing for it. There's not much an airport operator can do to interfere in such a process, without falling foul of the 1996 EU directive.

[nigel osborne]

True Blue,

Unless they are to release more flts, it seems the Monarch Sched for next summer has been cut a fair bit compared with this.

Looks like LGW, BHX, and MAN all loose a based plane each.

Supposedly down to the new boss who wants to trim under performance and increase load factors.

Rumours that either EMA or even Doncaster might see increases as their programmes are not yet released, but seen nothing to support this yet.


Nigel

[Facelookbovvered]

Nigel

I understand the load factors are very good from EMA for Monarch, do they fly from Doncaster? or will that be a new base?

[nigel osborne]

Facelookedbovvered.

If it was to be announced it would be a new base at Doncaster.

However that and EMA are only rumours.

The fact that EMA summer 2015 is still not out is puzzling when the other main airports including Gatwick have been out for 2 weeks now.

So they are either terminating a base out of EMA which seems hard to believe or there will be a big announcement soon on expansion ?


Nigel

[LBIA]

So if the EMA base is closing for a new base at DSA as you seem to be pointing out , surely that would have a major effect on the LBA base as well?

[MKY661]

I believe not all routes for Summer 2015 have been put on sale yet :)

[Facelookbovvered]

Nigel

I suppose the unknown at least to the public is to what extent EMA traffic is just pulling traffic that would use BHX anyway, if you live south of EMA then i guess BHX is no big deal or if you live North then DSA might be a consideration, but you would put the Derby/Nottingham catchment area at risk of using one of the other EMA based operators.
Personally i can't see them pulling the plug on EMA, Leeds on the other hand must be a uphill battle against FR & Jet2, but they face the same at EMA so who knows? perhaps DSA might give them an easier slice of the cake.

[nigel osborne]

Facelookedbovvered,

I think also you have to factor in the MAG effect, EMA being a MAG airport.

Sure they would want any extra passengers that might head to LBA to instead go to a MAG group Airport, would they have pulling power over MON re this ?

Nigel

[Skipness One Echo]

Not been officially announced yet but it's clear Gatwick's seasonal Air China A330 to Beijing is unlikely to return next year as CA have just announced double daily A332s out of LHR this winter.
Fair play for trying but like Korean Air, certain markets continue to massively favour LHR.

[adfly]

Have to agree, very unlikely Air China will return after this summer now. The only thing that could net LGW a Chinese route in the future could be an airline like Hanian who don't already serve LHR, and I can only see this happening if the Visa rules and Bilateral's are eased to make travel between the UK and China easier and more attractive to business and leisure passengers alike.

[LNIDA]

Norwegian have announced that LGW will be a crew base for the B787 and will shortly start to recruit local cabin crew based there.:ok:

[evergreenlondon]

Air One will cease flying to London Gatwick from Catania and Palermo at end of September. Rather a shame as traffic to Catania has been given a real boost this year from the launch of the route.

[fastenyourseatbelt]

Anyone know or have any input as to the Iraqi Airlines services from LGW. Working at Gatwick I do see them out the window but can't help but wonder if they will be able to stay profitable in light of the recent events involving Iraq:hmm:

evergreenlondon, it is indeed a shame about AirOne, it is my understanding they are soon to cease to exist?:(

[vectisman]

I wonder if BA will further increase their Catania frequency next Summer in light of the withdrawal of Air One. Palermo might also be worth looking at a couple of times a week.
In addition BA flights to Paphos seem to be always heavily booked. They were 5 weekly this Summer, maybe some scope to increase to daily during the peak period. We shall see.


V.

[adfly]

It looks as though 787-8 number 8 (try saying that over and over again...) will be based in LGW for next summer from the current schedule:

JFK - 6 weekly (3 weekly S14)
LAX - 4 weekly (2 weekly S14)
FLL - 1 weekly (2 weekly S14)

It is a shame to see FLL reduced so soon, although I expect concerns about punctuality put off a lot of potential cruise passengers. However the increases to JFK and LAX should help make DY a more appealing option by offering some additional flexibility for passengers. The above is 11 weekly flights in total so I shall hedge bets on a 2/3 weekly service to OAK being announced soon to fill the gap!

Source: Norwegian S15 Proposed Long-Haul Service Changes as of 01SEP14 | Airline Route (http://airlineroute.net/2014/09/01/du-s15update1/)

[wallp]

So today marks the long awaited return of Garuda to LGW. I wish them well & hope the route proves a success. Does anyone know how well it's selling?

Good to read that Norwegian's long haul operation is increasing in 2015. Presumably this will require at least two 787's & from the routes & frequencies confirmed so far, there's still a bit of scope to grow further?

It sounds like Air China are unlikely to return so it isn't all good news for LGW's long haul ambitions but is there likely to be any more new routes in the offing?

[canberra97]

On other forums it is stated that Air Zimbabwe wish to reinstate there Harare to LGW route and the airline are considering new aircraft such as an Airbus A340, but time will tell on that one, if it is the case it would be a welcome return for the airline and at least LGW secures another long haul destination.

[bunatern]

mahan air has reportedly been given uk goverment approval to start thrice weekly gatwick service with A310 so might be something to keep a eye on.

[adfly]

Norwegian Premium passengers will now be able to use the No. 1 Lounge for free at Gatwick and economy passengers can pay £25 to enter (door price is £30).

Norwegian agree Gatwick lounge deal with No.1 Traveller (http://buyingbusinesstravel.com/news/0823076-norwegian-agrees-gatwick-lounge-deal-no1-traveller)

Since Garuda started yesterday, does anybody know how forward bookings are looking for the route, I imagine the constant chopping and changing has not helped it.

[OltonPete]

Airlineroute.net reporting Aegean to Heraklion next summer starting at four a week increasing to six.

I assume the route is new as a schedule even if not the airline.

Pete

[True Blue]

Norwegian to start Orlando from April 15, 1 weekly.


TB

[Skipness One Echo]

Interesting that opening up new point to point markets with cutting edge B787 tech suddenly looks like trying to take market share from core and exisiting bread and butter markets.
Anyone know how FLL is doing?

[daz211]

Was hoping to see a LAS route opening up, but still time I guess.

[CabinCrewe]

Im not sure Norwegian ever said they were to fly 787 on ground breaking point to point services on untapped markets ? That was some of the legacy carriers...
I understand the FLL and Orlando demographics are actually subtly different and so in theory should complement each other. 90% of Orlando is point to point Disney seekers, whereas FLL has an older clientèle with larger cruise component, more likely to be travelling to MIA or elsewhere in Florida and even transferring at some point outwith FL.
Doesn't appear to be any reduction in FLL schedules as a result...
FLL is an excellent alternative to the hellhole that is MIA

[wallp]

daz211 Perhaps BA might increase capacity to LAS, how is the route currently doing ex LGW?

[Ph1l1pncl]

I am not sure how it's doing loads wise, but the route is part of BA's cancellations for winter and the route is suspended from the 3th December until March 11th 2015.

[toledoashley]

Had a look through the Gatwick Long Haul schedule of which there are 12 weekly flights, 6x weekly to New York, 4x weekly to Los Angeles and 1x weekly each to Fort Lauderdale and Orlando. The Fort Lauderdale route is a reduction from Summer 14, with the slot given to Orlando on a Saturday. It leaves 2 gaps in the timetable, giving each aircraft a break in the schedule. Number at end designates aircraft.


Have had confirmed from airline that Oakland was on the list of options, but decided not to operate, so looks like this could be the final schedule for next summer.

Mon LGW - JFK 1800/2100 JFK - LGW 2230/1030+ 1
Mon LGW - LAX 1345/1705 LAX - LGW 1905/1335+ 2


Tue LGW - JFK 1800/2100 JFK - LGW 2230/1030+ 2
Tue LGW - FLL 1550/2000 FLL - LGW 2200/1115+ 1


Wed LGW - JFK 1800/2100 JFK - LGW 2230/1030+ 1
Wed LGW - LAX 1345/1705 LAX - LGW 1905/1335+ 2


Thu LGW - JFK 1800/2100 JFK - LGW 2230/1030+ 2
Thu LGW - LAX 1345/1705 LAX - LGW 1905/1335+ 1


Fri LGW - JFK 1800/2100 JFK - LGW 2230/1030+ 2


Sat LGW - JFK 1800/2100 JFK - LGW 2230/1030+ 1
Sat LGW - MCO 1550/2000 MCO - LGW 2200/1115+ 2


Sun LGW - LAX 1345/1705 LAX - LGW 1905/1335+ 1

[yotty]

Would all those flights be direct toledoashley? :confused:

[toledoashley]

Yes, all direct. 6x weekly to New York, 4x weekly Los Angeles, 1x weekly Fort Lauderdale and Orlando.

All are based upon Gatwick getting the 8th 787.

[Need to Know Basis]

Dont forget LGW-BKK starting Summer 15.....but I think most likely Winter 2015/16. The aim is to build to 4 X B787 based at LGW.

[Sanf]

Spent the past couple of days looking for an Orlando flight for May 2015. Ended up coming across Norwegian's flight and reserved this morning. Very competitive prices, even including some of the extra's.


Really looking forward to the trip on the 787. Didn't realise it was such a recent addition to the schedule.

[BWSBoy6]

My family have booked Norwegian gatwick to FLL next year. They regularly spend August on the gulf coast of Florida and fly to Tampa (BA)or MIA (Virgin)
Norwegian were incredibly competitive price wise and by booking now for August 2015, managed to get a bulkhead seat both ways for an additional cost. As long as NAS don't go the way of Zoom and Laker, it should be a great alternative to the current Big Boys who are seriously in danger of losing our business.

[True Blue]

Is Norwegian dropping Nice next summer from Lgw? It had been on sale 2 weekly at really high prices. Now it is no longer on sale at all.

[wallp]

Shame to see BA dropping its Colombo flight from LGW with Male becoming a seasonal route. Am a bit surprised that Sri Lanka as a destination couldn't be made to work. Perhaps a direct service would've been better?

[CabinCrewe]

Would doubt it, loads were dire and not sure its a double drop cause. A 777 just too big perhaps. Cant see it coming back anytime soon. Wonder how it would have done direct from LHR?

[adfly]

May be one for TOM to consider 1x per week, although considering they recently dropped MLE it probably wouldn't happen...

[jdcg]

Presumably with UL now in Oneworld BA could easily do a codeshare from Chennai, where they've just upped capacity, to Colombo

[vctenderness]

In need of a a stiff G&T! Just looking for flights Gatwick - Alicante in October. Thought Norwegian were offering low cost flights.

Went on to their website and found flights, not direct but through Oslo, two people £2,274.20 :}

Easyjet, direct, are coming out around £200!

I reckon BA Club Europe would be considerably less.

Blimey!

[EI-BUD]

Equally Norwegian do not have a good booking engine. Not clear from the outset what routes they fly as in theory they link everywhere they fly with everywhere else they fly, often with outrageous pricing. Air Berlin equally a night mare. Not ease to compare pricing.

However, on direct services you can be lucky and bag an amazing deal like under €10 Spain London, I've seen many of these in the past ...

[ExpectmorePayless]

vctenderness

Have you looked at Monarch ? They do daily Alicante flights and the prices can be quite reasonable if the dates you require aren't already nearly fully booked. :ok:

[easyflyer83]

Isn't that the case with every airline Exprectmorepayless?


Leisure routes tend to get booked much earlier so for a flight within the next 4 weeks that price really doesn't surprise me.

[Out Of Trim]

Just did a search one Adult LGW/ALC Return £114.98. Dep LGW 10OCT AND Dep ALC ON 24 OCT.

Indeed it was Monarch that came out cheapest!

Seems an OK price to me!

[easyflyer83]

EZY even cheaper at £108.00 using those dates.

[True Blue]

And Norwegian start from £110 return in October depending on date, direct flights.

[Ramper1]

Gatwick airport website showing virgin departures to FLL and OAK in the morning! Any reason why they are operating these flights? Not in the website for sale! Also on virgin website from Lgw they are showing Phoenix, Seattle and another new destination

[Skipness One Echo]

NFL charter, NFL REGENT STREET festival on Sat.

[Out Of Trim]

Cool, just shows the prices fluctuate all the time!

I guess it's more about timing and a little luck..

[racedo]

Wot happened to Flight Tavern Pub at Lowfield as spent many a summer evening sitting in the garden.............. closed because of runway extension or other reason ?

[DaveReidUK]

closed because of runway extension or other reason ?If it was a runway extension they certainly kept that quiet ... :O

Don't know what the reason is, but their Facebook page hasn't been updated since 2013 and says "permanently closed":

https://www.facebook.com/TheFlightTavern

[cornishsimon]

Flybe LGW-NQY is back to 3 daily from today.


cs

[Need to Know Basis]

Strong rumour Norwegian will start LGW-HNL direct Summer 2015. Summer sked would be,

x 6 to JFK
x 4 to LAX
x 1 to FLL
x 1 to HNL

2 x B787 stationed at LGW.

[Tigger4Me]

Sure hope you're right about the HNL. My credit card is at the ready for that one!

[Fairdealfrank]

Strong rumour Norwegian will start LGW-HNL direct Summer 2015. Summer sked would be,
Thought it was OSL-HNL.

Sceptical about either route happening, but not to the extent of hat-eating.

[adfly]

Could happen eventually, once DU get more 787's, would have thought they could fill a 2x weekly flight from LGW and/or OSL once you include the connecting traffic from Europe. But it would probably be quite a hard route to make money on when you consider the sector length.

Still I'd say the most likely expansion for DU from LGW in the near term would be the addition of OAK and BKK along with some further frequency increases of the existing routes, assuming they continue to perform well.

[Charley B]

Virgin 789....G-VNEW delivery flight expected to arrive at LGW from Paine Field at 12.23 GMT today:)
Showing on FR24 as VIR824P

[LNIDA]

I understand that if it happens it will go over the pole, certainly from Oslo, the figure from Oslo is around 13 hours, so maybe 14 hours from London, which is around half the time it takes going through LA.

The 789 is a very different animal to the 800

All the company info says LGW will be the biggest 78 base within a few years

[Fairdealfrank]

Could happen eventually, once DU get more 787's, would have thought they could fill a 2x weekly flight from LGW and/or OSL once you include the connecting traffic from Europe.


Are DU/DY having a hub at LGW, or will this be a "self-connect" arrangement?


But it would probably be quite a hard route to make money on when you consider the sector length.


That's my thinking.




I understand that if it happens it will go over the pole, certainly from Oslo, the figure from Oslo is around 13 hours, so maybe 14 hours from London, which is around half the time it takes going through LA
.

Yes, both over the pole.

Great Circle Mapper (http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=lgw-hnl%3Bosl-hnl%0D%0A&RANGE=&PATH-COLOR=red&PATH-UNITS=mi&PATH-MINIMUM=&SPEED-GROUND=&SPEED-UNITS=kts&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=navy&MAP-STYLE=)

It also avoids the aggravation at LAX, but is there sufficient demand and premium business for the route to pay its way?

[LN-KGL]

LNIDA, United offers flights LHR-SFO-HNL with travel time down to 18h36m westbound and two stop HNL-ORD-IAD-LHR 19h10m eastbound.

[LNIDA]

Thats much better than my last trip, but that was Maui

Mind you I was in homeland security queue for 3 hours ...........i think point to point is worth a lot.

[adfly]

Fairdealfrank - DU/DY sell connecting flights through their larger bases (CPH, ARN, OSL, LGW) so it would be a 'proper' arrangement, incidentally on my flight from LAX-LGW in August there were quite a few passengers who had connecting flights to the likes of Bergen, Rome, Alicante, Barcelona from the conversations I overheard.

[adfly]

Air Transat are to add a 2 weekly Gatwick-St Johns-Halifax service on a 738 from next summer, replacing the weekly A310 Gatwick-Halifax route.

airtransat Adds St. John?s ? London Gatwick Service in S15 | Airline Route (http://airlineroute.net/2014/10/16/ts-yytlgw-s15/)

[CabinCrewe]

Maybe to cover the increase in the YYZ -GLA service which is going up to 6 times weekly. Surprised to see TS using the 737 across the Atlantic.

[wallp]

Don't Air Canada do the route from Heathrow on an A319 in which case perhaps not so surprising

[adfly]

Launching 3 weekly flights to Tehran from December on an A340.

Aviator ? Aviator signs contract with Mahan Air (http://www.aviator.eu/aviator-signs-contract-with-mahan-air/)

[LadyL2013]

It will be good to see not only a new airline but an A340 there. But 3x weekly? Is there really enough demand?

[jdcg]

has any progress been made on the proposed reshuffle of terminals with easyJet going to the North along with Virgin and BA coming to the South Terminal?

[Out Of Trim]

Virgin have always been at South Terminal.

Not sure if BA will move to enable all of easyJet to be in North Terminal.

[jdcg]

Sorry, my previous comment was ambiguous. Supposedly the plan was to move EZY and VS into North with BA coming the other way...

[matt_0445]

The plan is to swap next year when the new pier 1 is complete.

[EI-BUD]

I believe that in the recent revised deal that easyJet signed with LGW included a commitment that all operations could be handles under 1 roof at North. I may be wrong but I recall that this was to be achieved over a 3 year period. May stand corrected.

Would be surprised if BA would move to South, given the focus on improving the North Terminal in recent years, including the opening of a new check in area etc.


It could make some sense in having BA and EZY at North and all other operators at South.

[wallp]

Is the North Terminal big enough to handle all BA & all easyJet flights?

[davidjohnson6]

Is the North terminal big enough to handle all Easyjet flights at peak times in the week ? Even including the early morning rush on the last Saturday in July when schools have all finished for summer and there's a huge rush to a beach in the Mediterranean ?

[VickersVicount]

BA aren't moving anywhere

[Skipness One Echo]

.....until 2016 at the earliest and the end of the pier one rebuild.

[LadyL2013]

I can't see BA moving to the south, not after all the investment in the NT.

What I think is more likely is BA and EZY in NT and then Thomson et all being moved to the south.

[Andy_S]

It also avoids the aggravation at LAX, but is there sufficient demand and premium business for the route to pay its way?

The problem with point to point flights between Europe and Hawaii is that it's a leisure route and a niche leisure route at that; there's very little Premium traffic, so difficult to make money on.

It's been a while since I flew to that part of the world, but last time I did San Francisco - Lihue it was in an Economy only configuration.

[wallp]

So North Terminal has the capacity to take all BA & all easyJet flights?

That being the case it makes perfect sense to consolidate them both there with everything else in South Terminal though presumably Emirates wouldn't be able to switch until there are A380 gates in the South Terminal too

[T250]

No, north terminal has the capacity to take all of easyJet's flights not both BA and easyJet.

I believe the changes were for easyJet to move all its South terminal flights to the North, with Virgin and Monarch also following.

Therefore North terminal would be home to all of easyJet, Thomson, Virgin, Monarch, Vueling, Vietnam, Emirates, Icelandair and Turkish Airlines.

Whilst South terminal would accommodate BA, Norwegian, Thomas Cook, TAP Portugal, WOW, Flybe, Aer Lingus, Ryanair, Aurigny and Germania.

This new split between terminals would see North accommodate most of the widebody LGW traffic such as EK A380, TOM 787, VIR 744/787 and Vietnam 777, which it has the capacity for.

South would be home to more narrowbody traffic with the added bigger guys like the BA long haul and Norwegian long haul.

[wallp]

Well that makes a lot more sense. I was surprised when it was intimated that BA would stay put if easyJet consolidated into the North Terminal.

Whilst I can see it makes perfect sense to have easyJet in a single terminal, could BA be persuaded to move South? I've always thought the facilities in North Terminal were deemed superior to those in the South?

Maybe the easyJet terminal split will just have to continue?

[MKY661]

I believe the changes were for easyJet to move all its South terminal flights to the North, with Virgin and Monarch also following.

Never knew Monarch was involved in this plan.

[wallp]

It wasn't so long ago that Monarch did use the North Terminal before heading to South

[EI-BUD]

Wallp,
I'd have to disagree, I think South is now streets ahead of North, it has more outlets, is a nicer and brighter experience. But this wasn't always so. I guess it is a matter of choice.

[racedo]

South now looks more like an airport rather than a cheap train station.
But still think there is more to do and have direct access to departures rather than wandering through the Zones.

[Skipness One Echo]

Monarch were one of the first in the North but I don't think they were there after the mid 90s?

[racedo]

So who will go into the new Terminal WHEN the new runway is built :E

[yotty]

:zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

[jdcg]

Ryanair. Though the terminal will be a tent with a static caravan for their new-found business travellers.

[LNIDA]

Norwegian report they now have a market share of 8% at LGW (long haul & short haul)

[NickBarnes]

Has it being posted on here, but just saw flynas to end gatwick route?

[Charley B]

I think Flynas last flight to LGW was last week sadly:(

[NickBarnes]

Ah okay, sorry should keep up with the news, shame it didn't work

[adfly]

There are apparently some rumours of QR returning to LGW next summer, not sure how strong they are though.

[Charley B]

That would be good ...will keep fingers crossed :)

[LAX_LHR]

Qatar at LGW?


So, not content with 6 daily flights, including 2 of those flights being on an A380, a codeshare on the BA flight to make 7 daily, they now want an extra flight into LGW? Just how much capacity does the DOH-LON market need exactly?

[crewmeal]

They're after the onward connection market as they expand in the Far East and Africa. They're only doing what EK does.

[Skipness One Echo]

So, not content with 6 daily flights, including 2 of those flights being on an A380, a codeshare on the BA flight to make 7 daily, they now want an extra flight into LGW? Just how much capacity does the DOH-LON market need exactly?
They're not commercially driven here, it's partly about QR being an arm of the Qatari state, the same country whose citizens own the shard and finance ISIS at the same time as sponsoring the weather on SKY.

They have recently dropped LGW in favour of a second daily MAN back in the summer of 2011 so they know the market quite well, Emirates still run three daily out of Gatters even with five A388s out of LHR, feeding connections on from Doha. Thas has nothing to do with people actually going to Doha.

[Charley B]

There's no reason why QATAR shouldnt muscle in on the far east traffic out of LGW just like Emirates..the EK aircraft are nearly always full from here and as SIE says most are going way past the Gulf to the Far East/Australia etc..I personally hope it happens..Doha and Dubai are now massive hubs

[True Blue]

Reading that QR have confirmed they are returning to Lgw from 1st may 15.

[adfly]

Vueling are also to start Rome next summer, lot of competition on that route now!

[True Blue]

Vueling has increased Bcn to 4 daily as well.


I wonder if the return of QR could prompt the return of Etihad?


TB

[Charley B]

Also rumoured that EK will be using an A380 on the lunchtime flight(ek15/16) from 1/7/15:)

[pc.]

Hope that happens.
Be nice to be able to have a lunchtime drink in the local pub overlooking approach and see the A380 go by on a lovely summers day.
You can probably tell I'm fed up with the winter already.

Pc

[interpreter]

A second runway for Gatwick is most unlikely. Its affairs are in a complete mess and is possibly going to be a victim of corporate anti-tax avoidance legislation. The recent flight path trial was an unmitigated disaster and demonstrated complete incompetence on the part of Gatwick and NATS who thought they could ride rough shod over the Kent, Surrey and Sussex populace. It is estimated that if a second runway was built the extra charge needed on each one way ticket would be £51 compared to Heathrow of £31. The shareholders are desperate to get out and some of them are being severely criticised in their own country for being part of the international corporate tax avoidance scene. No prime minister is going to risk such a loss of votes from a vast swathe of the south east just for a runway which is not needed with unused capacity at Luton and Stansted - and some at Gatwick. Gloomy times ahead guys! Tighten your seat belts - severe turbulence ahead.:=

[Seljuk22]

EZY will launch STR with 12 weekly flights on 29th March :ok:

Anyone know how many EZY a/c are based at LGW this winter next summer? More than 60 now?

[vectisman]

Seljuk22
I believe the based fleet at Gatwick falls significantly during the Winter by 15 to 20 aircraft. They do not necessarily disappear but may spend more time on the ground. A great deal of maintenance is done during the winter months and a number of routes from Gatwick are seasonal.
For next Summer I would expect your estimate of up to 60 not to be far out.
However it all depends on how many services use aircraft coming in from other bases. Also several routes have been dropped during the winter and may not be back for next summer, e.g. Zagreb.


Somewhat disturbed by contents of post by 'Interpreter'. Is anyone able to comment on his rather extreme claims?
I did mention a few months ago that as decision time approaches regarding the extra runway in the South-East there may be lobbying and claims by both sides to derail (probably not the correct term here, maybe deplane would be better!) the case put forward by the opposition. I am wondering if this is one such example.


Thanks.

[racedo]

Somewhat disturbed by contents of post by 'Interpreter'. Is anyone able to comment on his rather extreme claims?
I did mention a few months ago that as decision time approaches regarding the extra runway in the South-East there may be lobbying and claims by both sides to derail (probably not the correct term here, maybe deplane would be better!) the case put forward by the opposition. I am wondering if this is one such example.

Always useful to have a look at an infrequent posters previous posts :)

[anothertyke]

Be interesting to know the source of Interpreter's £31 and £51 extra charge per one way pax. About 3-5 times what I'm expecting provided the project is financed by some pension funds which will accept a moderate payback period on a regulated asset.

[True Blue]

Amazing how reports are starting to appear in the press suggesting that Heathrow will be favoured in the report to be released next week for the new runway. I thought information like this would have been kept confidential.

[DaveReidUK]

Be interesting to know the source of Interpreter's £31 and £51 extra charge per one way pax. About 3-5 times what I'm expecting provided the project is financed by some pension funds which will accept a moderate payback period on a regulated asset.

Both those figures are roughly double the estimates that have been published by other sources, though the relative proportions seems about right given that Gatwick has around half Heathrow's annual pax.

[vespasia]

The recent flight path trial was an unmitigated disaster and demonstrated complete incompetence on the part of Gatwick and NATS who thought they could ride rough shod over the Kent, Surrey and Sussex populace.

Strange comment given the trial route went nowhere near Kent or Surrey:ugh:

[Seljuk22]

Pegasus is launching flights to SAW on 29th March. Initially 4 weekly flights be increased to daily during high season between July and September

[yotty]

Anyone who is interested. Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign - Latest News (http://www.gacc.org.uk/latest-news.php) :ok:

[Fairdealfrank]

GACC Protest Meeting.
Anyone who is interested. Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign - Latest News (http://www.gacc.org.uk/latest-news.php) Second rwy doesn't address the real issue: no spare capacity at the UK's hub airport.

Gatwick is in a semi rural area with very low unemployment, so where do the extra workers come from? outside the area.

Therefore they'll need houses and other infrastructure, this means urban expansion, and more people affected by noise than is accounted for.

This happened when LHR expanded in the 1950s post-war recovery with many moving (from Glamorgan and around Bristol in particular) to Middlesex to work on the airport and this lead to the expansion of former villages like Stanwell, Cranford, etc. into towns.

[yotty]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/375626/ac01-consultation-document.pdf :ok:

[racedo]

Gatwick is in a semi rural area with very low unemployment, so where do the extra workers come from? outside the area.

Therefore they'll need houses and other infrastructure, this means urban expansion, and more people affected by noise than is accounted for.

This happened when LHR expanded in the 1950s post-war recovery with many moving (from Glamorgan and around Bristol in particular) to Middlesex to work on the airport and this lead to the expansion of former villages like Stanwell, Cranford, etc. into towns.

Crawley and surrounding areas are growing anyway with or without Gatwick.

The current thousands of kids who will reach 18 and leave school in the areas around Gatwick will need jobs and wonder where they will come from.

Crawley was fairly major manufacturing in Manor Royal 30 years ago, drive through it now and its offices or empty areas which are used for airport parking.

GACC don't of course attempt to address in any way where all the new jobs are going to come from for even the existing population never mind the natural increase that will happy, rather its a case of No. No. No.

I am fully in favour of a new runway as can see the economic benefits it will bring to the area. Where as the Nimbys have all got to an age where their house prices are of more concern than jobs for people.

[Capetonian]

Crawley would be an excellent place to build the new runway.
What a dump.
With apologies to John Betjeman. :

Come friendly bombs and fall on Crawley!
It wasn't fit for humans ever
There isn’t room to park a car
Swarm over, Death!
>
Come, bombs and blow to bits
Those nasty discos full of flabby chicks,
Who've overdosed on alcopops
And flash their flabby tits
>
Mess up the mess they call a town-
A house for ninety-seven down
And once a week a half a crown
For twenty years.
>
And get that man with double chin
Who’ll always cheat and always win,
Who washes his repulsive skin
In women’s tears:
>
And smash his desk of polished oak
And smash his hands so used to stroke
And stop his boring dirty joke
And make him yell.
>
But spare the bald young clerks who add
The profits of the stinking cad;
It’s not their fault that they are mad,
They’ve tasted Hell.
>
It’s not their fault they do not know
The birdsong from the radio,
It’s not their fault they often go
To nearby Brighton
>
And talk of flying and makes of planes
In various bogus-burger bars
And daren’t look up and see the Boeings
But belch instead.
>
In labour-saving homes, with care
Their wives frizz out peroxide hair
And dry it in synthetic air
And paint their nails.
>
Come, friendly bombs and fall on Crawley
To get it ready for the runway
The cabbages are coming now;
The earth exhales.

[DaveReidUK]

With apologies to John BetjemanI should say so. :O

[yotty]

Total unemployment in the Crawley area is less than 2%. Within a 5 mile radius there are more vacant positions than unemployed! Where will all the 40k workers come from if the new runway is approved? If it's not from Crawley it will put a big strain on the road/rail services, even without double the number of passengers! There is limited scope for improvements to the London/Brighton railway, the M23 peters out just north of the M25 interchange.Traffic is congested in many areas even without further development. There is limited passenger growth south of the M25, so many of the new passengers will have to drive past LHR to get to LGW to get their flights! At least LHR has growth potential in the transport infrastructure, it has the Paddington link, Cross-Rail opening in 2018 plus the M3 M4 M25 M40 and a host of A roads. LHR is the choice of the majority of the world's airlines. LGW is awfully quiet in the afternoon now, let alone if( god forbid) it gets another runway. A bit like STN really. :eek:

[gilesdavies]

A second runway for Gatwick is most unlikely. Its affairs are in a complete mess and is possibly going to be a victim of corporate anti-tax avoidance legislation. The recent flight path trial was an unmitigated disaster and demonstrated complete incompetence on the part of Gatwick and NATS who thought they could ride rough shod over the Kent, Surrey and Sussex populace. It is estimated that if a second runway was built the extra charge needed on each one way ticket would be £51 compared to Heathrow of £31. The shareholders are desperate to get out and some of them are being severely criticised in their own country for being part of the international corporate tax avoidance scene. No prime minister is going to risk such a loss of votes from a vast swathe of the south east just for a runway which is not needed with unused capacity at Luton and Stansted - and some at Gatwick. Gloomy times ahead guys! Tighten your seat belts - severe turbulence ahead.

A NIMBY is in the room...

Almost sounds like they have taken a lesson from LADACAN (The local Luton NIMBY group) and just spouting a load of tripe!

[adfly]

La Compagnie are apparently looking to acquire LGW slots to fly LGW-EWR next year on an all business class 757, though they appear to be also considering STN and LTN. Could be interesting to see how this goes if it happens.

La Compagnie to Add NY-London to its NY-Paris Offering in March - WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/articles/la-compagnie-to-add-ny-london-to-its-ny-paris-offering-in-march-1416938915?tesla=y&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10909804295654494231304580298983524377348.html)

[EK77WNCL]

Were silverjet loads/yields from LTN good? If so could be attractive to tap into the market that once supported them.

Would I be correct in assuming that on an operation like this, a 50% load factor probably turns a profit?

[True Blue]

Smartwings has flights on sale to Prague. Looking at May seems to be 4 per week.

Tb

[ImPlaneCrazy]

EK77WNCL - loads were often good out of LTN, although the amount of pax that payed full-fare was a different story.

[sanjaime]

At last, hopefully, there will be some money spent on the station and links to the airport.

See : BBC News - Gatwick Airport railway station revamp backed with £60m (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-30316577)

When arriving or leaving LGW by train I always wonder if anyone has ever done a 'People Flow' study during busy hours.

SJ

[True Blue]

I see Icelandair are going up to 8 per week from October 15.

Tb

[True Blue]

Iberia express now on sale to Madrid 2 daily from the start of S15.

[crewmeal]

Something not quite right with Mahan Air's schedule taken from Airline Route -

W59990 IKA1900 – 2145LGW 310 234
W59991 LGW2100 – 0730+1IKA 310 234

[Need to Know Basis]

I heard the Mahan flights are delayed and will start June 2015 ex LGW. I also saw the same from Airline Routes and it is confusing as it talks of Mid December 2014......today being the 15th !

[adfly]

Rumoured -

Qatar to DOH 788 Daily from May.
Emirates upgrading early afternoon flight to an A380.
Mahan Air starting 3 weekly Tehran service initially on an A310. (Apparently the start of the service has been delayed from December until June 2015).
La Compagnie are looking to start Gatwick - New York Newark next year on an all business class 757, initially 5 weekly before increasing to daily.
Caribbean Airlines are apparently considering operating Gatwick - Kingston in the near future.

Confirmed -

Garuda to increase Gatwick - Amsterdam - Jakarta to daily from 01/07.
Vietnam will commence 789 flights from 01/07 and increase Hanoi to 3 weekly until 25/09.
Air Transat replace 1 weekly A310 to Halifax with 2 weekly Gatwick - St Johns - Halifax service on a 738. Toronto increases to 10 weekly from 9, Montreal from weekly to 2 weekly.
Caribbean Airlines are increasing Port of Spain to 4 weekly from 3.

'Based' Airline Changes -

BA

Antigua increases from 5 to 6 weekly.
Orlando increases to 14 weekly from 13 in S14.
Colombo has been dropped (3 weekly via Male in S14)
Kingston increases to 4 weekly from 3(?) last summer.
Male becomes winter seasonal (3 weekly last summer).
Port of Spain increases to 6 weekly from 5(?).
Providenciales is a new route moved from Heathrow, operates weekly (Sun) via Antigua.
Punta Cana is 2 weekly direct vs 3 weekly indirect last year.

Monarch

Dropping all longhaul at the end of W14/15, operated 2 weekly Orlando Sanford and 1 weekly Tobago last summer on an A332.

Norwegian

2nd 787 will operate from Gatwick next year;
Fort Lauderdale decreases from 2 weekly to 1.
Los Angeles increases from 2 weekly to 4.
New York increases from 3 weekly to 6.
Orlando is new, operates weekly (Sat).

Thomson

Cancun increases from 5 to 6 weekly.
Montego Bay increases from 2 to 3 weekly.
Orlando Sanford increases from 2 to 3 weekly.
Punta Cana increases from 2 to 3 weekly.

Thomas Cook

Same as this summer; 2 weekly Cancun and 1 weekly Holguin on A332's.

Virgin

Barbados is now a Daily A333 vs 6 weekly A333 + 1 weekly 744 last year.
Orlando decreases to 13 weekly from 14 last year.
Tobago returns, weekly via St Lucia on an A333 (Sun).

[True Blue]

It was announced maybe 10 days back that Pegasus was starting a new route to Istanbul (saw). So far it has not gone on sale. Anyone know what is happening with regard to this new route, is it going happen?

Tb

[Seljuk22]

Pegasus has removed flights to SAW from GDS. Let's wait and see.
With 75 A321/A320neo on order it's just a matter of time when we'll see them at LGW.

[pabely]

With only 8 aircraft currently at LGW, I assume it's going to get very busy soon with arrivals.........?

[vctenderness]

With a home in the Bodrum area I'm hoping Pegasus are expanding at LGW. I use them out of STN but LGW is more convenient.

BA is a welcome option but two a week is a bit limiting.

[evergreenlondon]

Meridiana seem to be cancelling mid week flights during January/February on their Gatwick-Naples route. Very low seat prices (£84 return) presumably indicate low loads.

[Bagso]

Lots of airtime given to Boris Johnson pre Christmas who suggested that hopes for a consensus re a second runway at Gatwick were now fading.

Political deal for Gatwick expansion 'fading', says Boris Johnson - www.travelweekly.co.uk (http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/Articles/2014/12/23/51617/political-deal-for-gatwick-expansion-fading-says-boris.html)

[Facelookbovvered]

Ultimately it will be a political decision and only Labour are likely to give the nod to expansion, any coalition will be a trade off and likely block any new runway.

What is the point of having an independent enquiry and then ignoring the advice?

[Fairdealfrank]

Lots of airtime given to Boris Johnson pre Christmas who suggested that hopes for a consensus re a second runway at Gatwick were now fading.


Good, it's red herring, a second LGW runway does not address the specific problem.



What is the point of having an independent enquiry and then ignoring the advice?


Quite. It's called "kicking it into the long grass", and another illustration of wasting public money.

[Bagso]

What is the point of having an independent enquiry and then ignoring the advice?

The UK is the World Leader in having enquiries !

[vctenderness]

I propose we have a Judge led enquiry into why we have so many enquiry's:}

[LTNman]

Now reopen!

[Skipness One Echo]

Gatwick's hub argument loses another airline, Vietnam apparently are moving to LHR with B787 operation.
http://airlineroute.net/2015/01/09/vn-lhr-s15/?utm_source=social&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=social

[willy wombat]

We all know that, as far as new (to London) long haul flights/airlines are concerned, Gatwick is merely Heathrow's waiting room.

[Fairdealfrank]

Gatwick's hub argument loses another airline, Vietnam apparently are moving to LHR with B787 operation.
http://airlineroute.net/2015/01/09/v...ampaign=social (http://airlineroute.net/2015/01/09/vn-lhr-s15/?utm_source=social&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=social)


Yep, as predicted: VN off to LHR-4.


We all know that, as far as new (to London) long haul flights/airlines are concerned, Gatwick is merely Heathrow's waiting room.


GA next?

[Wycombe]

GA will be interesting, as they have a long history of ops from LGW (albeit with an enforced break in recent years).

My feeling is that it would make more sense, and be a more valuable use of an LHR slot if they were operating direct to CGK (rather than via AMS as per the current LGW op).

[nigel osborne]

Willy wombat,

Have to agree.

With Vietnam joining the rumoured initial start of Phillipines at LGW ,just leaves Garuda in the far east catergory.

With the airport commission due to rule later this year on which london airport gets a new runway ,you can see LHR bleating that LGW is nothing more than a leisure airport and a stop gap for long hauler foreign scheduled airlines until they can get to LHR.

Not that I think either will actually get one built in the next decade.





Nigel

[pabely]

Wycombe - Signature would welcome more business as long as it does not pull from all their other London Operations. Heavies which usually go to STN?
Don't think LGW owners will be impressed after so much investment.

[wallp]

If Gatwick can't hold on to Vietnam Airlines it does make you wonder if they really can offer a viable offer to attract long haul airlines and passengers? Presumably it won't be too long before Garuda follow them to Heathrow.

[Wycombe]

Pabely - I think you misunderstood. By "GA" I mean Garuda Indonesia, who recently re-started ops from LGW (to Jakarta, via Amsterdam).

The discussion was about how long it might be before they move up to Heathrow, following the update on Vietnam Airlines (who have been at LGW for a few years) a few posts ago.

[T250]

Its becoming more and more apparent that despite the billions that GAL have invested in Gatwick, improving terminal forecourts, parking, hotels, overall passenger facilities like security lanes and even down to things like airside operations etc. that they still have not attracted any sustainable long haul airlines.

Vietnam Airlines has been one of the only long-haul airlines to stick around for several years at LGW, at least longer than others such as Hong Kong for example.

As far as I can see the only return that GAL are currently getting for their enormous investments is an increase in short haul traffic (easyJet and Norwegian) however the long haul side still lacks, despite Norwegian introducing JFK, LAX and FLL.

[wallp]

Sadly it's hard to envisage a significant long haul network at LGW in the future aside from the established leisure routes. If carriers like Vietnam A/L can't be persuaded of the merits of using LGW over LHR, theres little chance of attracting other operators

[Bagso]

Gatwick Obviously

...not very good at retaining long haul airlines !

[StevieW]

And yet have still just had their busiest year on record. I think the expanding, profitable short haul network is a little more important than an Asian airline operating an unprofitable route with regularly cancelled/re-timed flights for prestige reasons only.

It failed at LGW and it'll fail at LHR.

[compton3bravo]

However much spin the bosses at Gatwick put on it the airport has been and always will be the waiting room for Heathrow in terms of long haul scheduled destinations end of. Shudder to think if Heathrow gets a third runway - very very doubtful in my opinion - what would Gatwick look like - no BA for starters?

[LNIDA]

LHR is an hub airport LGW is point to point so long haul into/from LGW will only really work on routes where the vast majority of passengers are departing/arriving at their final destination. Should some like easyJet start long haul then given their huge short haul operation at LGW then it might become an easyJet hub.

Norwegians mini hub at LGW is only one dreamliner so its not statistically significant.

[Need to Know Basis]

Note 2nd B787 joins the LGW hub in April or May 2015. The rumour for Summer 2016 is 4 x B787 aircraft to be based at LGW.

[davidjohnson6]

Given Vietnam Air is a member of Skyteam, their natural European hub is presumably Paris. This is reinforced by the fact France ruled Vietnam as a colony for many years, meaning trade and cultural ties are present along with a large Vietnamese community in France.

It would seem a little perverse for passengers outside the UK or Ireland to choose to connect in London unless said passengers have a love of backtracking. I don't therefore see what Heathrow really adds to Vietnam Airlines that Gatwick cannot provide, apart from higher costs and the magic prestige dust that comes with flying to Heathrow.

Anyone able to counter this opinion ?

[Logohu]

Vietnam Airlines is a smaller and currently less known player in the Australia / Europe market. They offer an alternative (and often cheaper) route to the UK from downunder via Vietnam for those who want to venture away from the more well trodden stopover hubs of Singapore, Bangkok, Hong Kong, Dubai etc. Vietnam as a stopover or destination is actually very interesting (and cheap). The service on the aircraft was pretty good too, at least from my limited experience

Maybe VN just feel they will be better placed to compete for this market by being at LHR, where all of their neighbours and competitors are with the exception of (I think) just Garuda. Having lived and worked in the Asia/Pacific region a very long time, I still find most travellers originating from here struggle to name any London airport other than Heathrow.

[Fairdealfrank]

GA will be interesting, as they have a long history of ops from LGW (albeit with an enforced break in recent years).

My feeling is that it would make more sense, and be a more valuable use of an LHR slot if they were operating direct to CGK (rather than via AMS as per the current LGW op).
This could become viable with numbers of premium pax and availability of connections at LHR.


Pabely - I think you misunderstood. By "GA" I mean Garuda Indonesia, who recently re-started ops from LGW (to Jakarta, via Amsterdam).
So did I in the original comment about that carrier.


However much spin the bosses at Gatwick put on it the airport has been and always will be the waiting room for Heathrow in terms of long haul scheduled destinations end of. Shudder to think if Heathrow gets a third runway - very very doubtful in my opinion - what would Gatwick look like - no BA for starters?
No VS either?


Given Vietnam Air is a member of Skyteam, their natural European hub is presumably Paris. This is reinforced by the fact France ruled Vietnam as a colony for many years, meaning trade and cultural ties are present along with a large Vietnamese community in France.

It would seem a little perverse for passengers outside the UK or Ireland to choose to connect in London unless said passengers have a love of backtracking. I don't therefore see what Heathrow really adds to Vietnam Airlines that Gatwick cannot provide, apart from higher costs and the magic prestige dust that comes with flying to Heathrow.

Anyone able to counter this opinion ?
(1) Pax are unworried about back-tracking and doing dog-legs. If they were, EK, EY and QR would not be as successful as they are.

Almost all connections on these carriers involve going the "long way round" via DXB, AUH and DOH.

Check it out on great circle mapper if you think this is wrong.

(2) What LHR offers VN (and others) that LGW cannot are premium pax and the availability of connections. Simple as that.

[WHBM]

I am always surprised at the number of connections onto BA domestic and European flights from Heathrow that come from non-OneWorld carriers, there are obviously plenty of off-alliance through fares that are available (as an example, the recent medical case in the press of the nurse who returned from West Africa to Glasgow, Royal Air Maroc to Heathrow and then a BA domestic leg). This routing is just not available through Gatwick.

Sure Gatwick has done well again for passengers, I suspect it's almost entirely driven by the shell-suit lot on Easyjet and Norwegian. Good for them. And Gatwick has managed more than half the number of passengers at Heathrow while only having half the runways, and a fraction of the widebodies. But yes, if a third runway were opened today at Heathrow both BA and Virgin, even for their so-called "leisure" destinations, would be over there tomorrow. There's a very large proportion of higher-fare business traveller, in particular inbound from overseas, who just look for a Heathrow service - want a choice of half a dozen daily departures back home, high-tech customer in the Thames Valley, taxi/chauffeur service to Central London taking less than half a day, etc.

[pabely]

Wycombe - I was actually pulling your leg! GIA would have been a better summary of Garuda International.

[Fairdealfrank]

I am always surprised at the number of connections onto BA domestic and European flights from Heathrow that come from non-OneWorld carriers, there are obviously plenty of off-alliance through fares that are available (as an example, the recent medical case in the press of the nurse who returned from West Africa to Glasgow, Royal Air Maroc to Heathrow and then a BA domestic leg). This routing is just not available through Gatwick.


Not really surprising, Heathrow is a major European hub airport.


Sure Gatwick has done well again for passengers, I suspect it's almost entirely driven by the shell-suit lot on Easyjet and Norwegian. Good for them. And Gatwick has managed more than half the number of passengers at Heathrow while only having half the runways, and a fraction of the widebodies.


Yes, Gatwick has done well for pax, but it's a completely different client base than that of Heathrow, obviously.

The number of rwys isn't an issue in this context: Heathrow does better in pax numbers than CDG and FRA, for example, "while only having half the runways".

But yes, if a third runway were opened today at Heathrow both BA and Virgin, even for their so-called "leisure" destinations, would be over there tomorrow.


Gatwick's loss to Heathrow could be offset by gains from Luton and Stansted.


There's a very large proportion of higher-fare business traveller, in particular inbound from overseas, who just look for a Heathrow service - want a choice of half a dozen daily departures back home, high-tech customer in the Thames Valley, taxi/chauffeur service to Central London taking less than half a day, etc.


Indeed, and that needs to be catered for by adequate capacity at Heathrow, it helps drive the economy and trade.

We don't want these pax flying in on feeder flights from other European hub airports, or worse still, not bothering at all and just remaining in Europe.

[adfly]

Sorry to be a pedant WHBM but while I understand and agree with what you say the example routing of the nurse is in fact one which could be done via LGW since Royal Air Maroc serve it from CMN/RAK and BA fly to Glasgow! ;)

While it seems quite certain that the mainline/national carriers (except maybe the MEB3 and a few other exceptions like Aer Lingus) prefer Heathrow I'm curious as to how Norwegian will grow at LGW, especially when they start getting their 789's. I've read rumours of the two 788's being upgraded to 789's when they start to arrive plus there has been mentions of them considering OAK and BKK and also that FLL has lagged behind the other routes in terms of loads/yield. Does anyone on here have more of an insight into what DY/DU's plans are for LGW?

[Fairdealfrank]

Sorry to be a pedant WHBM but while I understand and agree with what you say the example routing of the nurse is in fact one which could be done via LGW since Royal Air Maroc serve it from CMN/RAK and BA fly to Glasgow!

Probably not on most peoples' radar, would imagine that most punters would just think "CMN-GLA, probably need to change aircraft, that will be at LHR".

[adfly]

Fair point, I guess a big part of the problem for Gatwick is the general public's perception of the London airports.

[True Blue]

Regarding the VN decision to move to Lhr, some points come to mind
1. It is surprising the number of people who do not want to see Lgw have any success in the long haul market. It seems Lhr has a right to this business.
2. The obsession by airlines to operate from Lhr, whether there is a good business reason or not. Not all decisions to operate from Lhr have proved successful either. How many more pax will now use this service because it uses Lhr rather than Lgw who would otherwise not have travelled?
3. I was reading today a comment that Lhr had been talking to VN for years and have a waiting list of 30 airlines. Well would they not be better operating from Lgw than waiting for years?
4. For many years now we have been listening to the fact that Lhr is full, yet it is still able to take airlines from Lgw. When does full actually mean full? I see Agean had obtained slots quickly for a new service from Lhr to Lca!


TB

[LNIDA]

There is always some churn of LHR slots, but the slots people want to allow feed into other European and domestic services are not available.

Personally i refuse to buy into this either LGW or LHR get a new runway argument, any Government with an ounce of sense post May should take Davis and say if either or both of the above want additional runway capacity get on with it. LGW would have it in use in half the time that LHR could and the UK needs it yesterday!! it would be easy to PR the LGW case which already has two independent but independently unusable runways to say no net increase in runways because we would close 26R/08L.

Assuming that both can finance these projects? the jobs boost to the South would be enormous, the South is the UK's power house no amount of money spent in the North of England will bring the same ROI, most visitors to the UK come to visit London, then perhaps York or maybe Edinburgh, but London is the number one pull by a million miles.

LHR is ideal for a vast range of destinations and connecting flights using the alliances, LGW is quick for central London and ideal for European visitors, mid size aircraft and point2point long haul flights

[adfly]

In an ideal world Gatwick would get a 2nd runway and Heathrow a 3rd, with preparations made for a 4th when 3 reach 85-90% capacity. But since that would be logical, effective and involves some long term thinking and consideration it will never get past any dithering politicians. :ugh:

[LadyL2013]

I'm not sure 'long term solutions' is in the governments vocabulary.

[Skipness One Echo]

1. It is surprising the number of people who do not want to see Lgw have any success in the long haul market. It seems Lhr has a right to this business.
You're personalising a commercial decision here.
The obsession by airlines to operate from Lhr, whether there is a good business reason or not. Not all decisions to operate from Lhr have proved successful either. How many more pax will now use this service because it uses Lhr rather than Lgw who would otherwise not have travelled?
That's a good question, however it will allow connections to use this with Skyteam partners, something not available at LGW. In terms of alliance synergies, LHR T4 has a Skyteam Premier lounge.
3. I was reading today a comment that Lhr had been talking to VN for years and have a waiting list of 30 airlines. Well would they not be better operating from Lgw than waiting for years?
Well they did, and now their time in LHR's waiting room is over, they can build on London traffic without leaving anything behind in the move.
For many years now we have been listening to the fact that Lhr is full, yet it is still able to take airlines from Lgw. When does full actually mean full? I see Agean had obtained slots quickly for a new service from Lhr to Lca!
Airlines die like any business, it's often dead man's shoes. See the likes of CSA, Cyprus, Bellview, BMI (!) in recent years all churning the slot pool. Some airlines slot sit, these are often shared by partner airlines.

[DaveReidUK]

it would be easy to PR the LGW case which already has two independent but independently unusable runways to say no net increase in runways because we would close 26R/08L

Somehow I don't see the PR industry falling over itself to try to spin that one.

[commit aviation]

No need surely - the closure of Manston could be considered as the loss of a runway in the South East so no net increase achieved!

[Need to Know Basis]

Since MSE was so far east......it was almost in Belgium I dont think you can count MSE as SE England. Even then it mostly Freighters and not SLF and what SLF there was, was odd charters and KLM being the only schedule service ? Unless I have forgotten any other scheduled carriers for SLF use.

[WHBM]

Somehow I don't see the PR industry falling over itself to try to spin that one.
Actually I believe that if Heathrow had presented its case a few years ago as a "Runway 23 realignment" rather than a "new runway" they could have made a much better and less confrontational case than has happened. It could all have been dressed up as "for safety reasons .... realigned so as not to be conflicting .... just a transfer of a runway .... saving noise in Northolt and Harrow" etc.


LGW would have it in use in half the time
I wonder. Heathrow owns much of the land required for the new runway already, they have been steadily buying it up as it comes on the market over the years. How much has Gatwick started on this ?

[DaveReidUK]

Actually I believe that if Heathrow had presented its case a few years ago as a "Runway 23 realignment" rather than a "new runway" they could have made a much better and less confrontational case than has happened. It could all have been dressed up as "for safety reasons .... realigned so as not to be conflicting .... just a transfer of a runway .... saving noise in Northolt and Harrow" etc.

I love it. :O

Though the Heathrow PR machine is already doing pretty well in selling propositions like this to the media:

A third runway at Heathrow would mean less noise for 300,000 residents ? new analysis - Airport World Magazine (http://www.airport-world.com/news/general-news/4184-new-analysis-alleges-a-third-runway-at-hI)

[canberra97]

Pabley

You do realise that GA is the IATA code for Garuda Indonesia that is why in the earlier post GA was used?

There fore there was no need to put GIA!

[Fairdealfrank]

Since MSE was so far east......it was almost in Belgium I dont think you can count MSE as SE England. Even then it mostly Freighters and not SLF and what SLF there was, was odd charters and KLM being the only schedule service ? Unless I have forgotten any other scheduled carriers for SLF use.

What? Nonsense! MSE is so far east it can only be regarded as south east England. Its location cannot be mistaken for East Anglia, Thames valley, South Coast, etc..

The nature of the business using the rwy does not matter, nor does the frequency of use. The loss of a rwy is a loss of a rwy, just like the demise of 05/23 at LHR (and others before it at LHR).

Two new rwys at LHR could meet the criteria of "one net new rwy", the other being a replacement for MSE.



Actually I believe that if Heathrow had presented its case a few years ago as a "Runway 23 realignment" rather than a "new runway" they could have made a much better and less confrontational case than has happened. It could all have been dressed up as "for safety reasons .... realigned so as not to be conflicting .... just a transfer of a runway .... saving noise in Northolt and Harrow" etc.


This is brilliant, a bright future in the govt. spin machine beckons.

[DaveReidUK]

The loss of a rwy is a loss of a rwy, just like the demise of 05/23 at LHR (and others before it at LHR).

Except that no loss of capacity resulted from the closure of Runways 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 at Heathrow.

Unlike the loss of Manston's only runway, which reduced its capacity by 100%. :O

[Blink182]

BA at LGW are moving to the South Terminal. Just confirmed the move will be November 2016. Guess that means the North will be all Orange (except EK)

[canberra97]

Blink183

Is there a link?

When you say that the North Terminal will be all 'Orange' apart from Emirates, does that mean that the other airlines that are currently at the North Terminal be moving South including for example Caribbean Airlines, Garuda, Thomson, Turkish, etc?

Also it was planned that Virgin Atlantic would be moving in the opposite direction if and when BA moved South and North went Orange, is still the case in the recent confirmation of terminal moves?

As a regular BA customer at LGW I must admit I am disappointed with this move and was hoping it would not happen and in some way was hoping that Easyjet would consolidate their LGW operations at the South Terminal.

I know that the South Terminal is a lot different than it was due to the huge investment made by GIP but I much prefer the North Terminal as I find it far more of a pleasurable experience and the departure lounge and shopping area is by far superior in lay out to that of South Terminal which I find hideous.

[LGWAlan]

Here you go:
British Airways to move to London Gatwick's South Terminal - Business Traveller (http://www.businesstraveller.com/news/101216/ba-to-move-to-gatwicks-south-terminal)

[wallp]

Isn't the South Terminal too small to consolidate all of easyJets flights hence why they are heading North which has greater capacity and BA heading the other way?

Presume this means other airlines will move in either direction too?

[T250]

South terminal will at some point be opening I think up to 10 new stands/gates on the new pier 1 refurbishment/project.

However, in terms of widebody stands, south terminal is going to be very limited as it currently stands with all airlines there currently. Some will have to move to North terminal to facilitate BA in the South I would have thought.

Otherwise I'm not sure how you will accommodate up to 5-6 BA 777s, 5-6 VS 747s/330s, the Air Transat flights and a couple of Norwegian 787s within a few peak time hours in the morning 0700-1200 all at the same time and in the same terminal. Could be possible (just about) but would be a squeeze!

[adfly]

T250, I think the plan is for Virgin to move north with EZY which should leave plenty of space for BA/TS/DU/TCX to use the widebody stands. I wonder if Iberia Express and Qatar(if they do return) will move South with BA?

Just to add Norwegian are starting a weekly flight to Kefalonia next summer on Saturdays.

[LadyL2013]

I wonder where TOM will go. During peak times they have a fairly sizeable operation from LGW.

[WHBM]

I see Gatwick has started an ad campaign alongside the M4 from Central London out to Heathrow, saying if Heathrow gets another runway this road is going to be overcrowded beyond use ......

They've obviously never tried coming in by car from Gatwick to Central London then. By the way, how much is a cab from Gatwick to say Piccadilly Circus nowadays ?

[Hial Flyer]

T250, I think the plan is for Virgin to move north with EZY which should leave plenty of space for BA/TS/DU/TCX to use the widebody stands. I wonder if Iberia Express and Qatar(if they do return) will move South with BA?

Just to add Norwegian are starting a weekly flight to Kefalonia next summer on Saturdays.

Iberia Express will be operating from the South Terminal when they start their flights

[True Blue]

It was rumoured recently that Pegasus was to start Istanbul (Saw) from the end of March and Qatar was to return from May. As nothing more has been heard of these, does anyone know if they will proceed/not proceed?


TB

[LAX_LHR]

It was rumoured recently that Pegasus was to start Istanbul (Saw) from the end of March


They are doing flights to SAW via DLM from May if thats any help?

[True Blue]

Pegasus were to operate to SAW direct, not via DLM.


TB

[LGS6753]

No direct flights in the booking engine for June/July. SAW is listed, but via DLM.

I too thought they were planning LGW-SAW, but it looks indirect.

[Bagso]

Campaigners: Gatwick Airport has had ?woeful week? - Mid Sussex Times (http://m.midsussextimes.co.uk/news/local/campaigners-gatwick-airport-has-had-woeful-week-1-6560665)

Same question to Gatwick. At what point does the cost of a second runway actually become uneconomic ?

£6B or as i like to describe it 6000,000,000M.

£12B

Or as this campaign group suggests

£19B

If you have a premium product where demand outweighs supply is that not the perfect model ?

[BasilBush]

Bagso - Gatwick's Achilles heel has always been the fact that its airlines are simply not prepared to pay the increased airport charges that would result from a second runway. So you are absolutely right to question its viability.

In contrast, although Heathrow's charges are already higher and would rise further in the event of R3 going ahead, its airlines are likely to (reluctantly) accept the higher charges because of the overwhelming advantages of Heathrow (much higher fare yields etc).

To a large extent, GAL's campaign for R2 is a cynical exercise by its key shareholder GIP to boost its value ahead of a planned sell down of its shareholding within the next couple of years.

[True Blue]

With the increasing pax numbers going through gatwick, what effect will this have on the main airlines there? It is probably fair to assume that the increases are not solely from new routes, but also increasing load factors on existing routes. So will easyjet and BA quickly find themselves with equipment that is too small? I know that BA are introducing some a320s, but is it not a fact that if you operate at a very high load factor, you are losing pax at busy times to other operators?

[CabinCrewe]

GIP planned sell off? what is this about- would have thought some of the others in the portfolio would be first for the for sale sign?

[BasilBush]

GIP is what is known as a closed end fund, ie they have a defined period for holding the investments within the fund before realising their investments and distributing the proceeds to investors).

[Bagso]

LHR LGW debate

live Sky 630 pm Monday 23rd Feb

[True Blue]

On my computer, Norwegian is showing flights to N America in March, but no returns from Lgw. They are not showing as full, just not listed at all. In fact, the month almost seems greyed out for returns. April shows as normal. Is this a fault with their internet booking or something else?

TB

[LNIDA]

All looks normal on my lap top!! returns through until Jan 2016 from LGW JFK

[adfly]

Hopefully DY will release a fuller longhaul schedule in due time, the days for New York aren't fantastic for a weekend break which I would think is a significant part of the leisure 'market' the flights will appeal most too. Would also be surprised not to see FLL or MCO over the winter, since it is a busier time for the former and the latter would do especially well during the half terms/Christmas holidays. Even including the 2-4 extra flights per week such additions could bring there would still appear to be room in the schedule for an additional route (BKK?).

[pc.]

EK15/16 upgraded to A380 from 1/4 to 20/4.
I wonder, just for that period, or could it be extended if popular?
Looking forward to seeing it in daylight.

PC

[cornishsimon]

Interesting just for those days!
perhaps planned MX on the 777 fleet ?
However I do suspect that its just a matter of time before LGW goes 2 A380 daily




cs

[Flitefone]

More than likely the extra 380 reflects higher demand during Easter Hols.

[True Blue]

I see Pegasus has their direct flights to Istanbul SAW on sale now, 6 times a week. Wonder if TK will respond in any way?

[EI-BUD]

So easyjet and BA quickly find themselves with equipment that is too small? I know that BA are introducing some a320s, but is it not a fact that if you operate at a very high load factor, you are losing pax at busy times to other operators?

True Blue,
You make a valid point here. However, I think it is worth recognising that
1. both BA and easyJet are moving towards more 320's as they recognise lower unit operating cost, easyJet have clear plan to move in that direction and especially for LGW that is the right course of action where demand is high

2. From a yield management model perspective 319 has some advantages; the airlines would prefer to fill a smaller machine and collect higher fares on the last seats. BA bought a huge fleet of 319's for LHR when the airport was already at max capacity and this was at a time when a sizeable fleet of 757's were already the backbone of the fleet on short haul.

Hence, the airlines key priority is filling the existing ac and gaining max revenue, rather than worrying as much about losing pax. Though upgrading to 320's should help remedy that. BA are moving to increase the no of seats on its 320 fleet too.

Finally, if we consider the age profile of existing BA fleet. Some of which are 25 years +, whatever they buy now in the near future could be around in a very new environment in when either LHR or LGW may have extra runway capacity And as a result added competition, which might warrant a slightly smaller aircraft in some instances...

[cornishsimon]

It might not be too far fetched to see BA pick up some second hand 321s to add to the LGW operation !


cs