GATWICK

[BAladdy]

BA will launch flights from LGW to VIE from the 17th September. Flights will operate 6 x weekly until 23rd October. The frequency will be reduced to 4 x weekly for W15/16

Until 23rd October 2015

BA2658 LGW 16:00 VIE 19:10 x6
BA2659 VIE 20:00 LGW 21:30 x6

From 25th October 2015

BA2658 LGW 16:00 VIE 19:10 x236
BA2659 VIE 20:00 LGW 21:30 x236

[Seljuk22]

Pegasus once again opens reservation for SAW-LGW

1st May, 6 weekly, A320/B737

[LNIDA]

Historically BA were far more interested in maximising yield from lower volumes than filling aircraft and diluting the yield, the difference is now that you pay for luggage and all manner of other things, so filling the aircraft is more important and more seats (if you can fill them) makes more money.

Although the route Vueling seem to be taking with their high density AIRBUS pushing 186 seats at 29" pitch!! might be ok with the somewhat shorter Spanish clients but won't go down well with leggy Brits

[Seljuk22]

Icelandair

Gatwick-Reykjavik service is also due to increase to a daily frequency in 2016
Icelandair to Acquire two Boeing 767?s For Heathrow Route :: Routesonline (http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/247853/icelandair-to-acquire-two-boeing-767s-for-heathrow-route/)

[True Blue]

I have always been slightly puzzled by this accepted concept that Lgw can be a death bed for many airlines but Lhr is the place to make loads of money. The reason I get confused is this. Many talk about Lgw being just a waiting room for Lhr. Maybe that is true. What puzzles me is those who make it work. Emirates, Turkish and now we read that Icelandair is taking their Lgw service to daily from 2016. Not all airlines have made a success of Lhr, I think I am right in saying that China Airlines and Philippines Airlines both cut back on services? I also assume that BA and VS have not lost money on ALL their routes over all the years they have been operated, yet kept them going, from Lgw.

I read recently that Air China claimed that they could fill 4 flights a day ex London, if only they could get the slots. So are they saying that out of that demand, which they cannot satisfy as they cannot get the slots at Lhr, that they could not get enough pax to pay a decent yield to operate one flight a day ex Lgw. I know that Air China did operate briefly from Lgw.

So I am wondering this:
1. Do airlines have a fascination with Lhr, to the point of making poor decisions? Think Vietnam Airlines. How will they benefit when they have no direct competition from London.
2. Does a service from Lgw have a bigger effect on their Lhr flights than they thought would happen? The Lhr flight is weakened more that they thought so they pull Lgw. Neither Air China nor Korean gave their Lgw service much of a chance so I am not sure how they could decide so quickly.
3. Lhr claims to have about 30 airlines on a waiting list, some waiting for years. So are they all saying that it is better to wait for years with no service than try Lgw?

One of the reasons prompting my thinking is that not all big companies make good decisions, there are obvious examples at the minute. Is the dislike of Lgw really all based on fact, or a lot of it on opinion? The rest are in Lhr, we need to be there as well mentality.

TB

[Fairdealfrank]

I have always been slightly puzzled by this accepted concept that Lgw can be a death bed for many airlines but Lhr is the place to make loads of money. The reason I get confused is this. Many talk about Lgw being just a waiting room for Lhr. Maybe that is true. What puzzles me is those who make it work. Emirates, Turkish and now we read that Icelandair is taking their Lgw service to daily from 2016. Not all airlines have made a success of Lhr, I think I am right in saying that China Airlines and Philippines Airlines both cut back on services? I also assume that BA and VS have not lost money on ALL their routes over all the years they have been operated, yet kept them going, from Lgw.
Carriers are not homogeneous, some can operate at LGW some can't, some can do both LGW and LHR. Very few can't make LHR work and those that quit are usually in dire financial straits and sell/lease their LHR slots to avoid going under. Cyprus Airways is a recent case in point.

It's not "talk" about LGW being a waiting room for LHR, it is, although this applies to longhaul operators, again a recent case in point is Vietnam Airlines which has just finished its stint in the waiting room and shifted to LHR-4.


I read recently that Air China claimed that they could fill 4 flights a day ex London, if only they could get the slots. So are they saying that out of that demand, which they cannot satisfy as they cannot get the slots at Lhr, that they could not get enough pax to pay a decent yield to operate one flight a day ex Lgw. I know that Air China did operate briefly from Lgw.
Maybe it's one of the carriers that can't justify the expense of two London destinations.


So I am wondering this:
1. Do airlines have a fascination with Lhr, to the point of making poor decisions? Think Vietnam Airlines. How will they benefit when they have no direct competition from London.
2. Does a service from Lgw have a bigger effect on their Lhr flights than they thought would happen? The Lhr flight is weakened more that they thought so they pull Lgw. Neither Air China nor Korean gave their Lgw service much of a chance so I am not sure how they could decide so quickly.
3. Lhr claims to have about 30 airlines on a waiting list, some waiting for years. So are they all saying that it is better to wait for years with no service than try Lgw?
1. No, Vietnam Airlines have access to a high level of business/premium pax at LHR which simply isn't available at LGW, plus access to connectivity and a Skyteam hub, which again, isn't available at LGW.

2. It's not always cost-effective for carriers to operate from 2 airports in the same market. Turn it on it's head and look at BA: doing 2 airports in New York, Paris and Tokyo from Heathrow works, doing 2 in Moscow doesn't.

3. See 2 above, in some cases, yes, in others, no.


One of the reasons prompting my thinking is that not all big companies make good decisions, there are obvious examples at the minute. Is the dislike of Lgw really all based on fact, or a lot of it on opinion? The rest are in Lhr, we need to be there as well mentality.

TB
It's not a question of "dislike", it's all about making a profit. Who would operate a service that loses money?

LGW isn't in the same league as LHR, so it's not comparing like with like. In many cases, LHR will be the only UK airport served. If it is not available, another airport in the same league may be needed (to make adequate money from premium business and connecting pax, etc.) and this means AMS, CDG, FRA, etc., not LGW.

This is yet another reason why LHR expansion is needed and needed now.

[Skipness One Echo]

Neither Air China nor Korean gave their Lgw service much of a chance so I am not sure how they could decide so quickly.
They have the commercial data which compares their LHR vs LGW operations. The LGW services seemed to attract the lower yielding tourist trade with the front end prefering LHR. Remember that the US airlines who moved to LHR in 2008 said they would operate dual LHR/LGW but both US and CO dropped LGW soon after and DL did in the end as well.

[anna_list]

http://www.acl-uk.org/UserFiles/File/LGW_S15_StartofSeason.pdf

Movements and seats are up by 3 to 5% on last Summer. 1.8M additional seats are on sale. The biggest increases are from Easyjet, BA, Norwegian and Vueling, offsetting a substantial reduction by Monarch.

[vectisman]

anna list
Many thanks for the link. An interesting read. As some have previously indicated on here, still quite a bit of capacity at certain times of the day even peak season.


Is this how BA manages to keep slipping in some new routes? For example Vienna announced late last week from September. Does anyone know how many slots they got back from Aer Lingus?


Dominance of EasyJet obviously apparent. (just like BA at Heathrow)


Thanks again.


V.

[EI-BUD]

True Blue,
Re LGW and LHR post.

I see 3 advantages at work here. Ability to make a connection on the same ticket ( as opposed to booking separate tickets or using low cost airlines). The scale of the alliances helps too, with all being well represented.

The catchment around LHR is huge in West London and makes LHR an attractive choice.

Having the tube is a plus, eventhough not any faster to central London than LGW (slower in the main), but attractive price wise. Though on.the while train ticket price only a part of it!

[EI-A330-300]

vectisman

That would be 0, they may of gotten the 06.50 which was up for grans but EI got a different one for this.

[adfly]

Norwegian are increasing JFK to daily from next February, and apparently 4 weekly rather than 3 during the rest of the winter although it is not bookable yet. Still no news on what will fill the gaps in the long haul schedule though, does anyone have any for information on what this may be?

http://airlineroute.net/2015/03/24/dy-lgwjfk-feb16/

[LAX_LHR]

Norwegian twitter reporting that a new LGW long haul route will be announced soon. Maybe the long rumoured BKK at last?

[toledoashley]

They did 'favourite' my suggestion of San Francisco... not that means anything!

[adfly]

I would think it ill be Oakland or Bangkok, that latter perhaps being most suited to a winter start. Out of interest roughly when will Norwegian receive their first 787-9 in 2016?

[adfly]

Norwegian are due to announce a new long haul route from LGW after easter as per their Facebook page. It was due to be announced this week but they have postponed it due to the Germanwings crash and wanting to respect those affected by it, which is understandable.

[compton3bravo]

What on earth has the tragic Germanwings crash got to do with announcing a new route from London Gatwick by Norwegian? More like not getting the publicity they were hoping for. It hasn´t stopped other airlines announcing changes to schedules, new routes etc. but there again I am just an old cynic.

[adfly]

It may just be a case of bad taste, a few days after an aviation disaster you have another major european airline going PR crazy over some new routes, although I would have thought they would have just pushed it back a few days rather than a couple of weeks. I've read elsewhere that BGI or LAS are rumoured, and of course OAK and BKK keep being brought up so I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[adfly]

It seems that New York will now operate daily from 25th October this year, with Los Angeles being 3 weekly. Fort Lauderdale is also now on sale 2x weekly for the winter (Mon/Fri) so allowing for a days rest for each aircraft this completes the winter schedule for long haul. I expect the new route will be for next summer based on this information, which makes sense since it will most likely coincide with the delivery of the first 789's for Norwegian.

[wallp]

How are load factors doing on Norwegian long haul routes?

It makes perfect sense to fly daily to JFK. If they want to properly compete with the LHR operators they need to offer a frequent service.

I hope that SFO, IAD & BKK might be in the cards when the next routes are announced

[True Blue]

I see Norwegian are double daily several days a week from Lgw to Madrid this summer. Will there be any more short haul expansion out of Lgw before next year? Am I right in thinking it is 2016 before they start to receive any more new aircraft, at least in any numbers?

[PAXboy]

Oil discovery near Gatwick airport 'significant' - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32229203)

[adfly]

Emirates' 2nd daily A380 will become a permanent addition from June.

[Charley B]

Thats great news..Im sure it wont be long before the early morning flight is also an A380...would be nice to have an extra rotation a day as well here!!

[Fairdealfrank]

Oil discovery near Gatwick airport 'significant' - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32229203)


Should bring Swampy and the usual suspects out of retirement, and might Caroline Lucas have more time on her hands to devote to this after May 7?

[Seljuk22]

EK will introduce a two-class A380 (615 seats; 58 Business 557 Economy) on EK009/010 from 1st January 2016.

[Skipness One Echo]

So if you see it pulling onto Stand 110 as you taxi into the North Terminal *RUN LIKE HELL* to passport control.....#solidadvicethere

[Charley B]

*Emirates is extending the upgrade of UAE15/16 to an A380 from 21/4 to 14/5, leaving this service as a B773 from 15/5 to 31/5 only, with it then becoming a permanent A380 flight.

Emirates are now leaving the A380 on the lunchtime flight permanently..so 2 x A380 here daily from now on

[True Blue]

looking at Gatwick arrivals this evening, Norwegian seems to have 7 aircraft there tonight. Is that correct?

[LNIDA]

All the 'based' aircraft are on EI plates, but 4 'based' aircraft night stop elsewhere, 1 each at OSL, CPH, ARN & WAW, the WAW crew have a short night stop, split duty

[adfly]

If Norwegian's facebook page is to be believed this reply to a post suggests the new long haul routes due to be announced are transatlantic and also that we should find out what they are very soon. I'd say one is most likely LGW-OAK unless it is an entirely new destination in which case BOS/LAS/ORD would be a possibility (all speculation of course).

http://gyazo.com/2530b6ae1e8711783cb00ed9c6ca90e0

[Need to Know Basis]

Or BKK or BGI or CPT....all being mentioned before.

[adfly]

Well assuming the post I took a screen shot of in my previous post is correct it will be a transatlantic route. That would bring BGI into the running although it would be nice for Norwegian to fly somewhere popular but not served from LGW, like OAK or BOS rather than treading on the toes of BA/VS with LAS or BGI. I guess we will have to wait and see.

[Need to Know Basis]

OAK is no use to man or beast. It goes down well from ARN or OSL or CPH to OAK because they never ever had a direct flight to SFO. It will not work ex UK. It would be akin to flying SFO to London.....but you land in Manston ! Why BOS ? ORD would be great !

[LN-KGL]

Seems like you know the Bay Area on a Need to Know Basis. To my knowledge it takes around the same time to drive from SFO and OAK to The Fairmont San Francisco on Mason Street. Norwegian's flights lands late afternoon/early evening and with that the rush is over and with that no need to spend unnecessary time in the car. If you are heading to Berkley it takes between 20 and 40 minutes from OAK and 40 and 100 minutes from SFO. If you are going to visit Googleplex in Silicon Valley you may need 5 minutes extra from OAK compared with SFO.

The two airports many differ in flair with a large share of LCCs at OAK and the legacies opting for SFO. The question is: Would you like to spend much on travel or will you spend the money saved on a better stay in San Francisco?

[True Blue]

Is Norwegian dropping Warsaw from Lgw at the end of the summer season? Not on sale after October.

[canberra97]

NEED TO KNOW BASIS

As mentioned your totally wrong with your assumptions regarding OAK, I have used both OAK and SFO and I can assure there is not much time difference in travelling to your OR from central San Francisco as in the Fairmont Hotel, the BART Bay Area Regional Transport connects OAK to downtown San Francisco in approximately the same time as from SFO.

There really isn't much difference and OAK can be far more convenient for those that are not actually heading to San Francisco.

You can't compare it to the likes of Manston, I suggest you look at Google Earth and see how close OAK actually is to SFO or take up Geography as a subject.

[adfly]

Somebody has posted a screenshot of the following advert to Norwegian's Facebook page. Having read elsewhere that a press conference in Copenhagen is due tomorrow it is quite plausible this advert could've slipped through the cracks a day early. If so then Norwegian will start Gatwick-San Juan from this November.

Gyazo - 41645e934bebcd564ea28dab59876ef6.png (http://gyazo.com/41645e934bebcd564ea28dab59876ef6)

[intortola]

That would be excellent news, really miss LGW-SJU flights, San Juan is only a short 30 minute flight from home.

[LadyL2013]

I can't imagine there would be much call for SJU apart from cruise connections. I might be wrong.

[intortola]

LadyL2013. There are connections out of San Juan to quite a lot of the NE Caribbean, if it means passengers can avoid Liat and coming via Antigua they will do well. Interline arrangements with Seaborne or Cape Air would make this even better. They need to promote this well in the NE Caribbean, I mentioned it to a few people today and they were delighted. I used the route often when British Caledonian did it many years ago and also Virgin and BA although they were via Antigua

[NickBarnes]

at those prices can see it doing well for Norwegian

[LadyL2013]

Intortola - of course! Why did I not think of that? I guess with the cruise connections also, it should be quite successful.

[adfly]

The fully released winter schedule has 14 weekly departures by 2 based 787's (presumably as before they swap at destinations to the Scandinavian long haul routes so each can get its weekly day of rest). Below is a breakdown of the routes:

Fort Lauderdale (FLL) 2 weekly (Mon/Fri)

Los Angeles (LAX) 3 weekly (Tue/Thu/Sun)

New York (JFK) Daily

San Juan (SJU) 2 weekly (Wed/Sat)

In addition to San Juan Norwegian today also announced a weekly flight to Pula starting from 24th May this year.

[compton3bravo]

That is a very short lead-in (just over a month) for the Pula service. Maybe a tour operator i.e Thomas Cook has block booked some seats?

[airhumberside]

Pula was on sale before today (at least for a few weeks). Probably either a re-announcement, or press release held back until the long haul routes were also announced

[adfly]

That would explain it then, it did seem very odd for the route to be released only a month or so before it was due to start.

[j636]

A CheapFlights.com study has shown Gatwick to be the cheapest UK airport for US travelers....it takes spot number 14/25 in Europe!

Most affordable European airports for US travelers | Cheapflights (http://www.cheapflights.com/news/most-affordable-european-airports-for-us-travelers/)

DY having an impact I suspect

[toledoashley]

Prestige Holidays has bought a load of seats on the Pula flight - they have an extensive Croatia product.

[compton3bravo]

Yes. thats OK, get the Yanks into a false sense of security and then let them find out how expensive the UK really is - that will be $1 every time you put your hand brake on at the traffic lights Sir. You have to pay for parking here plus please turn off your engine while stopped at the traffic lights - environment you see - or it will be a $25 fine. Oh by the way welcome to the UK and have a great day!

[LNIDA]

All very true, but you are less likely to get shot and you can save on the tips..

Pula is heavily pre sold and there are plans to tie the route with the LGW - Caribbean routes, apparently a there is a tie up with cruise markets??

A number of LGW Norwegian charter routes for Tui kick off this next few weeks, Naples has turned up on the roster........

[BHX5DME]

Record Gatwick growth illustrates need for decisive action on runway capacity

11/05/2015

April traffic figures show 26 consecutive months of passenger growth with nearly 3.2 million passengers travelling through the airport
Gatwick responds to launch of Airports Commission consultation on air quality, pointing out that despite consistent growth, it has never breached air quality limits, while Heathrow consistently does
North Atlantic traffic shows strongest growth with increase of 8.2%
Gatwick CEO: “Now is the time for a final decision on extra runway capacity. Decades of debate must now turn to action”
Nearly 3.2 million passengers travelled through Gatwick Airport in April, a 0.6 per cent increase on the previous year, the 26th consecutive month of consistent growth and the busiest April ever.




In 2015, the busy Easter getaway was spread across both March and April traffic, while the previous year, Easter was firmly represented in the April figures and was the first April that Gatwick had handled more than 3 million passengers in its terminals. April 2015 sees an increase of 18,000 passengers.




The largest growth comes on routes to the North Atlantic where nearly 152,000 people travelled, an increase of 8.2 per cent. This is due to the success of the Norwegian operation, which offers low-cost long-haul flights to four destinations in the US. Norwegian launched its low-cost transatlantic operation at Gatwick in July 2014 and has enjoyed continued success since then, underlining the growing importance of point-to-point travel and the impacts the low-cost long-haul market could have on the airports expansion debate.

The busiest European route was Barcelona, with traffic increased by 0.2 per cent with 113,200 passengers travelling to the Spanish city in April. The route is operated by Vueling Airlines, Monarch, Norwegian, easyjet and British Airways.




Dubai remains the busiest long-haul route out of Gatwick, with passenger numbers increasing month on month following the introduction of a second daily A380 on the route operated by Emirates.




Gatwick Airport’s Chief Executive Officer, Stewart Wingate said: “Our record run of growth proves yet again the benefit of having a network of competing airports in the South East. However investment can only take us so far with our growth strategy.




"Now is the time for a final decision on extra runway capacity. Decades of debate must now turn to action. The fact remains, a new runway at Gatwick can be delivered quicker, cheaper, more simply and at a fraction of the overwhelming environmental costs that face Heathrow.




"It is highly significant that the first decision by the Airports Commission after the election is to consult on the issue of air quality. It shows that the issue has now become fundamental to the choice that lies ahead. It is an issue that cannot be ignored. The area around Heathrow currently breaches legal air quality limits, while Gatwick has never breached legal air quality limits and our location means we never will."

A major programme of investment is underway in the airport’s North Terminal, with £1 billion committed to projects that will help to drive Gatwick’s growth in lieu of a second runway. Although these projects will allow the airport to grow beyond its current position, investment will only drive growth up to a point.

[kcockayne]

According to FR24's arrivals & departure pages at Gatwick & Jersey BAW are operating a 777 into Jersey today.
If that happens , "I'll eat my hat!"


Paddy Ashdown

[bunatern]

This mornings Emirates flight operated with A380 so all three flights today A380.

[J-Guy]

According to FR24's arrivals & departure pages at Gatwick & Jersey BAW are operating a 777 into Jersey today.

I had the same thought myself when I first saw the flight down as a 777. The flight last Sunday was operated by an E190 though which made an interesting change.

[virginblue]

What's the reason for a 777 to JER :eek: Can such a large aircraft easily be accommodated at JER? I am thinking about fuselage length, steps, pushback etc...

[jijpc]

I think that FR24 must be incorrect. Having flown into Jersey many times over the years I am pretty sure you wouldn't be able to get a 777 into Jersey. The currently operated A319 and B737 aircraft have to brake fairly hard to ensure that they don't fall off the end of the runway.

[kcockayne]

virginblue

No. The biggest a/c ever to have visited Jersey; & there were two of them, were BAW L1011s back in 1978 & '80 (I think). They were operated to clear a backlog of pax caused by fog.
Apart from them, we have had BAL B767-200s, BCAL A310s, a sole RAF VC10, Aer Turas CL44, B757-200s of various companies incl. BAW, BAL, MON, BCAL, Odyssey, AHR, Ambassador, Air Europe, AMM, Air Belgium. Also, B727-100s of ATA, DAN, HLF, TAP & -200s of Sterling, DAN, HLF & Air Columbus. Plus DC9-80/MD80s of NEA, TWE, SAS, FIN, MPH, Air Liberte & SWR.
That's about it for the bigger stuff. I think 777s are a bit too large for Jersey, even 200s. Although we did have a UAL do a low flypast from Farnborough one year.

[strawberry Ribena]

It's a380 all this week for EK. half term rush.

[Charley B]

EK11/12 are A380 23/5-28/5 inclusive when it will revert to 777 on the early morning arrival

[nigel osborne]

BHX5DME.

Interesting on the news today David Cameron apparently "Warming" to a 2nd runway at Gatwick.

Will be very interesting if the airport commission report back that due to high pollution around LHR , Gatwick is their preferred option to recommend for a 2nd runway.

However nothing is that simple.

With Easy Jet saying they would prefer a 2nd runway at LHR and many long haul scheduled airlines seemingly just using Gatwick to lodge until they can get into LHR there are problems.

Low cost airlines probably don't contribute enough to re pay for a 2nd runway at Gatwick and what percentage of flts are low cost out of their 50% perhaps ?

Another article claiming last week that therefore a congestion charge may be needed around Gatwick to pay for a 2nd runway and curb pollution.

The govt may have to try and force the big scheduled airlines to migrate from LHR to Gatwick, but how would that work .. has failed before ?

Star Alliance get moved to to Gatwick but Sky Team you can stay at LHR.. would Star Alliance buy that with probably higher business passenger revenue out of LHR.

Oh if we could only go back to the glory years at LGW in the 70s/80s/90s when it was a much fairer balance between the two. :(

Be interesting to see how it develops and how many years it takes to get a new runway up and running in the SE !


Nigel

[Skipness One Echo]

Move Skyteam or STAR to Gatwick? Are you serious? Inflict a market distorting competitve disadvantage against Lufthansa, Air France or KLM in favour of BA and you'd be in court and lose very quickly and rightly so.

"Fair" distribution? What does that even mean? This is business, not a nationalised monopoly where Whitehall decides Air Canada should move to Stansted (went to the highest levels of govt did that one!!).

Those days are gone, Air New Zealand and Cathay don't want to move back, no one does. Why would they?

[LNIDA]

Not a chance that one off the alliances will be forced to move from LHR, you either move all of them to Boris Island or they stay at LHR with or without a new runway.

LGW needs a second runway for its own growth, even if the likes of Norwegian based its entire planned 787 fleet at LGW it would have little effect on LHR demand.

I just hope that the people who get to decide on the Davis report understand that LGW serves a very different market to LHR, both a prime assets to UK investment, jobs and access to international markets.This should never have been a one or the other debate, for the government the political cost will be the same whether they build at either airport or both, the job boost will clearly by greater by doing just that.

Scrap HS2 build HS3 and green light both LHR & LGW but not a cent of public funds and that includes immediate infrastructure costs on the associated M25 & M23 motorways.

Medium term pollution will decline, the latest generation of petrol engines, stop/start technology,hybrid and all electric cars will see to that.

[AerRyan]

As an outsider on this issue (From Ireland and rather uneducated on the subject), I cannot understand why Both airports cannot be granted a 2nd and 3rd runway respectively? They are both at near full capacity and both need another runway! If Gatwick get a 2nd runway and Heathrow don't get a 3rd I predict that it will have a large effect on the London economy.

[anothertyke]

A couple of points :

1. While I agree that a move of one of the alliances to LGW is most unlikely, I think it is wrong to assume that just because the airline market is configured in a particular way in 2015 it will look the same in 2025 and 2035. In a growth environment there is every reason for the market to change and for fourth and fifth forces to develop further than they have done so far.The case for LGW does not depend on some improbable event like Skyteam upping sticks occurring.

2. Let's suppose that the projects have to be commercial, at a minimum inside the perimeter fence and arguably including the effects on the M25, the Brighton Line etc. If that is the case, it's pretty clear that doing both projects simultaneously will lead to neither being commercially financeable. Therefore the most you could expect will be the go-ahead for one for completion in ten years time with an expectation of the second in twenty years time if UK and world income growth, carbon prices etc pan out as expected.

[kcockayne]

Let's face it. The commercial case is for Heathrow.
If you build a second runway at Gatwick, all you get is a replica of the existing Heathrow - which is too small (hence the need to expand).
What the market wants (to be able to compete with EHAM, LFPG, EDDF etc.), is a much larger EGLL. A decision in favour of EGKK would be a totally political fudge -& leave both 'LL & ' KK being too small to compete with the other airports.
End of story.
The 'LL option is what it should get to meet the requirement. You can expand EGKK, if you like, & it might well be an improvement over existing facilities, but the general requirement needing to be fulfilled is Heathrow !

[Walnut]

I am not so sure that the commercial case is made for LHR, Take New York it has 3/4 a/p's equally spaced around it thus allowing road traffic to get into Manhattan from different sectors, If you expand LHR you exacerbate the road access problem not ease it. Plus the M25 is a key road link between the Channel Ports and the North, If this traffic goes anti clockwise it gets snarled up on the Thames Crossing, always very busy or it goes clockwise past LHR again currently gridlocked in the peak times. Dig it all up and the country could suffer horrendous loses. Air traffic is important but road freight is more important to the UK economy.
So yes an improvement at LGW would make more strategic sense as it would allow a different point of entry into London and would be a much shorter route for air freight seeking to use the Channel tunnel, both in or out

[kcockayne]

walnut

your points are well made, & I have no issue with them.
What I meant to convey was that the REAL requirement is for ONE large London airport (perhaps replacing both 'KK & 'LL). This would have been the Thames Estuary airport, or something similar. Apparently, that has been ruled out & the choice for expansion lies between 'LL & 'KK.
In these circumstances, the only "solution" would be Heathrow; since choosing Gatwick for expansion would not result in the actual required solution, which is ONE much larger ( than 'LL's present size) London airport to compete with the continental airports for "hub & spoke" & connecting traffic.

[Charley B]

Best idea is one extra runway at LGW and LHR...keeps everyone happy :)

[055166k]

If Scotland dump the taxes the lowland airports could become hub and spoke gateways for long haul......fare savings potential is enormous....job creation and economic growth significant. Certainly give Paris [4 runways and another 3 at Orly], Amsterdam [5 runways], Brussels [3 runways] some competition.
Common sense dictates that Heathrow is a tactical non-starter.....do you really put all your capacity in one airport.....one incident could close down the majority of UK airport capacity in an instant. Logic dictates that Gatwick is the choice by a long long way.
Unfortunately politics are involved......if you study the Heathrow situation in detail it is evident that the airport runs 10-15% below capacity as a result of operating restrictions [not the "curfew"....the dedicated runway ].
So no immediate hurry......a simple signature on a piece of paper would increase Heathrow capacity overnight.
Is there another reason for capping Heathrow capacity? I really don't know, but if I were writing a novel I might consider that the high value of Heathrow slots would be eroded if capacity increased, and there would be extra competition if extra slots became available.

[nigel osborne]

Skipness

you miss read my post ,as I say Sky Team or the other alliances simply wouldn't buy it.

However we are talking politicians here who know nothing about yield, hubs or anything else.So wouldn't put it past the Govt to try it.

They tried to force SAS Air Canada and others to transfer to LGW many years ago and got two fingers from the airlines.

Nigel

[nigel osborne]

Walnut,

Some good points here.

However not discussed here is how Gatwick would pay for a 2nd runway certainly the low cost airlines wouldn't.

At least at LHR with fatr more full fare airlines and business/first class passengers the revenues are much higher.

Financially it has to be LHR, thats where business passengers want to fly from.

However with little political appetite to expand LHR I can see them going for LGW in the long term .

Nigel

[Skipness One Echo]

Again, for the umpteenth time, some people are conflating runway capacity with hub capacity.
1) A HUB is a single large airport with usually one dominant carrier with a large number of intercontinental destinations supported by feed from other domestic and international airports. Think LHR / CDG (less so ORY) / AMS / JFK (no single dominant operator) / EWR / DXB / DOH / AUH / ZRH / FRA / MUC / BRU etc. THis is crucial in driving business support and inward investment.

2) Runway capacity is more concrete to allow people to fly

If there's no intersection between 1 and 2 then your hub is still massively constrained. To be clear, the Scottish Lowland airports are not competing for hub capacity. To be clearer, and this is quite crucial.

GATWICK AIRPORT is not a HUB and has failed every time it has tried and has also lost every legacy long haul airline ever with the exception of the BA/VS Beach Fleet.

If you give LGW a new runway the locos can't pay for and business won't use, what are you actually doing?

[anothertyke]

Well, if they can't pay for it, the funders will be unable to raise the money and even if planning permission is given, the project will not happen. To a greater extent at LGW than at LHR there will be market testing and that is a virtue of the system, accepting that it is a regulated market.

I think yours is not the only view Skippy. While many would accept the prime need is for hub capacity, they would also say that there is a need to consider what to do if that cannot be delivered at an acceptable social and economic price. Then, what you are doing is (a) increasing the size,comfort and quality of the waiting room as you have put it innumerable times, (b) increasing the capacity of the London and SE system for dealing with point to point traffic which IF the forecasts are correct will be desperately needed by the time the capacity is on line

I read you to be saying that LGW should not proceed under any circumstances. I'm surprised.

[True Blue]

Lets bring some economics and capitalism to this debate. We have been told for a century now that Lhr is full. Yet it keeps on being able to find slots and room for more pax and new services. I believe that although runway capacity may be near 100% at Lhr, only about 70-80% of seats are sold on services. I could be wrong with my percentages but I am certain that aircraft do not operate through Lhr at anywhere near 100% load factor. We are also told that there is a waiting list of 30+ airlines waiting to get into Lhr, some waiting for years. I would like to see that list myself to see how true that is! Because if I was running an airline into London, one of the greatest markets on earth, I think I would give Lgw a try rather than do nothing for years in the hope of getting a slot at Lhr. At the end of the day, if the only expansion is at Lgw and the demand keeps increasing, the airlines will go there as there will be no-where else to go. And no, they will not up sticks and go the Paris etc, because the carrot which is London is just too big for them to resist.


There is a lot of posturing going on here and self interest. For many, including Easyjet, they do not want Lgw expanded out of self-interest, not the good of the nation. People may have to deal with their obsession with Lhr and learn to think outside the box. Markets change, so do travel patterns and airlines.

[Skipness One Echo]

I read you to be saying that LGW should not proceed under any circumstances. I'm surprised.
No I'm just angry that Gatwick Obviously are, in my view, peddling a myth that another runway at Gatters helps hub connectivity. Two airports working side by side and all that jazz. The market reality is far from that with no based airline offering meaningful hub capacity, not even BA who predicate their LGW model on point to point leisure.

Adam Thomson didn't want BCAL to be at LGW, he was at LGW only because he was frozen out of LHR to protect BA. Same with BUA, Laker and for the first six years, Virgin Atlantic. By all means expand LGW, I think there's a good case for that. However on one point Boris Johnson is correct, London needs one hub airport to be supported and expanded if the UK is to pay it's bills in the global economy. So in my view as well as his, support your hub. He wants to close LHR, I want to expand it, however in no reasonable scenario, and I understand the report will refelct this, will adding a runway at LGW and not LHR result in any more long haul flights to connect us into global markets.

Because if I was running an airline into London, one of the greatest markets on earth, I think I would give Lgw a try rather than do nothing for years in the hope of getting a slot at Lhr
In long haul, if you offer LGW and someone else offers LHR, you'll only mop up low yield leisure with front end high yield choosing LHR. BA found this out when they ran a dual hub, African services moved from LHR to LGW saw their yield stay at LHR with the competition. Korean Air found this recently as did Air China. Garuda are currently flying fresh air between LGW and Jakarta and Vietnam have just gotten out of LGW for LHR.
and learn to think outside the box. Markets change, so do travel patterns and airlines.
In this case, it has been the same as always. Think ouotside the box all you like, EOS did, Silverjet did, Maxjet tried, Hong Kong Air attempted to, Norwegian are having a go, but up against critical mass, you more often than not lose badly. btw "out of the box"? Not when you're flying multi million $ assets about, look at the history and the numbers. A much better guide than blue sky thinking in most cases.

We have been told for a century now that Lhr is full.
Odd given it dates from 1947 :)

And no, they will not up sticks and go the Paris etc, because the carrot which is London is just too big for them to resist.
Key point is most are ALLIANCE members so whereas continuing to serve London one stop via STAR ALLIANCE FRA/ZRH/MUC or SKYTEAM CDG/AMS into LHR might make some money, a direct service to London-Gatwick probably will not. This is how LHR competes with continental hubs rather than LGW.

[PAXboy]

For the regular visitor - don't bother reading as I'm repeating information but hope to concentrate it into (more or less) one place to get the point focused.

True BlueWe have been told for a century now that Lhr is full. Yet it keeps on being able to find slots and room for more pax and new services.

LHR booted out lots of UK regional flights and, instead of a 146 or (now) E170/190 types, lands B777, A380 etc. Not many turbo-props at LHR now!
Carriers themselves also willingly did this, BA bought up small regional carriers just to get their slots and booted the flights elsewhere, or simply canned them.
LHR booted out all the Exec Jets so that they could land pubic pax aircraft. One pair of slots for a 738 and one for a 744 and one for 388, as against three Gulfstream movements.
LCY opened in 1987/88 and took a lot of the small a/c out of LHR and LHR was DELIGHTED to lose them.
A new ATC system was introduced to help stack more aircraft - as well as the problem of LCY flightpaths in the LTMA.
ATC staff became adept at using the increasing information about wake vortex to schedule arrivals/departures in the best sequence. Also, of course, the principle of alternating departing a/c to turn left and right to increase spacing. This might mean that an a/c leaves slightly later than it's true departure slot time but the overall flow rate is increased. Everyone involved understands this.
Aircraft technology improved so that they could travel closer to the preceeding aircraft.
LTN + STN + LGW + regionals took package and routine holiday traffic out of LHR, leaving more slots.
They started stacking i/c aircraft to the maximum

Lets bring some economics and capitalism to this debate.Yes lets.


Carriers are prepared to up the price to allow for numerous holding circuits and long taxy waits on arrival (for a stand) and on departure (for a slot).
Carriers pay way over the odds to buy slots at LHR.
Carriers pay way over the odds for check-in desk space and ALL the facilities at LHR.
Pax are prepared to pay for 1 + 2 + 3.
Carriers are so keen to get out of the waiting room (LGW) that they do 1 + 2 + 3 and schedule their flights at a time suitable to LHR, rather than their own base.

THAT is the economics and capitalism of EGLL. I'm sure that Skipness and others will give more reasons. But the crux is that, despite my 9 points above LHR is full. If the govt commanded LHR to cut all inbound delays and not to stack a/c to save fuel exhaust over London? The airport would instantly not be able to operate or be profitable. I suggest that, on opening a 3rd runway, and clearing the outbound taxy waits and inbound stacks - LHR would, almost immediately, be full again. They would have to start stacking again because govts did not look to the nation's well being and build (either) a new 4 runway hub 25 years ago or allow 4 runways at LHR

Have you enjoyed the inbound waits and outbound taxy at JFK? Same problem.


For many, including Easyjet, they do not want Lgw expanded out of self-interest, not the good of the nation.Of course! But they don't want LGW because the Pax want LHR. It is the govt that have to look to the good of the nation. Unfortunately, for the last 30 years all govts have failed in their policy about airlines and airports. The Tories say that they don't want to meddle in the commercial operations and then do exactly that. (Do some reading about the cost of parking and shopping at LHR and how that came about) (Also read about the 'management' of the UK aero industry from 1945) (Also about the good fortunes of British Caledonian) (Etcetera) ALL of those were politics and nothing to do with 'economics and capitalism'.


People may have to deal with their obsession with Lhr and learn to think outside the box. Markets change, so do travel patterns and airlines. The govts of the last 30 years have cut off all the other options and thus trained the public about LHR/LGW and, consequently, the regional fields have opened up their service. No one has come up with a plan to reverse 30 years of economics and capitalism AND


politics - the lot of them
1970s fuel price shocks
the development of widebody a/c
Global expansion
major UK recessions of the early 1980s, the early 1990s
the crash of 2008
Time to put the kettle on ...

[True Blue]

Paxboy

I agree with most of what you and S1E say.

But Lhr has taken the 9 steps you give above, where do they go from here? I believe that even if Lhr gets the green light, it could be 15 years before that new runway is operating, am I right? Let us assume that demand keeps on rising, even with some shocks. Those carriers at Lhr need to and want to add services. Now they have decisions to make. At some point the three costs you state will become uneconomic, even at Lhr. It might take them a while to figure that out, due to ego, but it will happen. So what do they do then?
1. Pay those ever increasing costs at Lhr, even as their services are made loss making/much reduced profit because of the costs
2. Forget about the rising demand and leave to others, who may be using Lgw already
3. Start at Lgw.

I know where I would place my bet.

It is slightly different for Ba, they can move services to Lgw to free up slots at Lhr, but foreign based carriers have no such option. I also believe that the change of owners has made a massive difference at Lgw. BAA had no interest at all in promoting Lgw, GIP are a different animal.

Re the airlines you mention who tried Lgw and quickly moved to Lhr. I would question how they could decide on the future of a route after one season. Air China has stated they could fill 4 flights a day ex London if they could get the slots. If that claim is true, is it not odd they could not make one flight a day ex Lgw work? How long did Korean try? But look at Turkish, fairly recent to Lgw and I believe would like to have five services a day next year. Icelandair, going up to 8 a week later this year I believe. I look at some of these carriers who moved quickly to Lhr and I ask myself, did they really want their Lgw service to succeed at all?

At the end of the day, it is only when we look back in maybe 10/15 years time that we will see who was right. In the meantime, a great debate and a lot to play for for both airports and the country.

[racedo]

Another article claiming last week that therefore a congestion charge may be needed around Gatwick to pay for a 2nd runway and curb pollution.


No chance as A23 underneath terminal and M23 are key road links, tell people who trade with the massive Manor Royal which has more jobs that Gatwick that they now have to pay to get to work or deal with businesses.

[kcockayne]

Several good points made by people on both sides of the argument about 'LL & 'KK.
However, the FACT remains that the customer demand & strategic solution, is for ONE very much larger Hub & an uninterrupted amount & frequency of flights from it.
IF you build a 2nd. Runway at 'KK that's fine for 'KK. But it only gives you another airport the same size as the present 'LL. It does NOT provide what is needed ie the very much larger ONE main international gateway.To do that would require 2 or 3 extra runways at 'KK & a very much larger terminal.
Without the Thames Estuary development, the expansion should , logically, take place at Heathrow.
Two similarly sized airports (at 'LL & 'KK) are not what will meet the requirement. Both will be too small compared to what is needed.

[davidjohnson6]

Discussion elsewhere on the web about Jakarta airport's operator reducing the PCN, meaning a fully loaded B773 is too heavy and thus Garuda will have to fly Jakarata-Singapore, refuel and then fly onto Europe. In the other direction refuelling would not be necessary.

I'm very dubious that an Amsterdam-Gatwick-Amsterdam tag-on brings in positive cashflow compared to sitting on the ground at Amsterdam for a few hours or taking feed from KLM, but I don't have access to the confidential numbers so can only make an opinionated guess.

Anyone have any thoughts as to whether Garuda will still be flying to London (Gatwick, or even Heathrow) beyond late October 2015 ?

[PAXboy]

True Blue
But Lhr has taken the 9 steps you give above, where do they go from here?They are now - well and truly - full.
At some point the three costs you state will become uneconomic, even at Lhr. It might take them a while to figure that out, due to ego, but it will happen. So what do they do then?LHR ossifies - as it has already started to do.

I look at some of these carriers who moved quickly to Lhr and I ask myself, did they really want their Lgw service to succeed at all?We shall never know but I'd say they wanted it to work as a pump primer to build routes until they could get to LHR.

At the end of the day, it is only when we look back in maybe 10/15 years time that we will see who was right. In the meantime, a great debate and a lot to play for for both airports and the country. Which is why I have been saying for five years (in the threads related to this issue) that it is already too late.

The delays of the last 25 years have allowed:


Regional fields to open up
FRA/AMS/CDG to take the expansion

Then the unexpected:-


The Middle East hubs have opened
The LCCs took the feeders and regionals and underminded the Legacy cash flows

Consequently, LHR is 'walking dead'. Even if the 3rd opened today and the 4th in 15 years time- it's too late. We have lost our position in the European market and it cannot be got back. If we do get the 3rd (doubtful) it will only absorb a tiny amount of the current and future demand.

Gatwick is a side show because of the failure of all govts over the last 30 years and nothing can change it now. Even if we got LHR 3 and LGW 2, it's 'game over'.

Sorry but that's how it looks to me.

[LNIDA]

I think its a long way from being 'game over'

LHR & LGW serve different markets, of course there is some over lap and some who fly from LHR would fly LGW if they lived South rather than North of London and the other way round.

Skippy has pointed out that LGW is not a true hub, although it does have some connecting flights and many DIY options.

LGW is the world's busiest single runway airport and heavily relies excellent ATC and mainly local based pilots who understand what is required, hence the fact that Turkish have had to have 'follow me' cars because they don't understand or comply !!

That it needs another runway is without doubt in my mind.

LHR needs either at least one additional runway or moving, the delays inbound even in good weather cost money, missed connections and a lot of additional fuel burn and pollution due holding, surely the whole point of an hub airport is reliability, come TS or stormy weather, BA will start to cancel the short haul stuff to the likes of LBA/EDI/GLA, thus encouraging long haul passengers to route through AMS in future.

At the end of the day it will be a political decision, but go back to 1997 and Lord Prescott said at the time 'do nothing is not an option' had Labour been elected in in 2010 then work would likely have been underway by now, the delay is an acceptable price for them not having be so elected, but this should not be allowed to go on for another 30 years.

[AirportPlanner1]

I doubt very much that a Labour government in 2010 would have got on with an extra runway. Besides, after 1997 they also had the parliaments commencing in 2001 and 2005 which came and went with nothing but hot air

[PAXboy]

LNIDA
I think its a long way from being 'game over'This is the gatters thread that hass diverged slightly. I normally only say in LHR or threads relating to extra capacity at the hub/south east that:

It's game over for LHR as an international hub to be reckoned with. The European hubs are all established and streets ahead of us. The ME hubs will continue to buy UK biz.

Simple Example from : MAN


Direct to DXB-DOH then SYD-MEL-PER-BNE
Direct AMS-FRA then onward
Car/Train/Coach to LHR and still have a plane change or tech stop in SIN/BKK etc.

Repeat that for all UK regions. Unless you live in easy range of LHR it's not worth it. Fortunately, millions live near it and the M4 corridor exists because of LHR and that will keep it going. But futher expansion? It won't happen.

LGW/STN/LTN will continue doing their own sweet things but the UK will not have an international hub to challenge Europe. I'll stop as I'm repeating myself and boring everyone.

[kcockayne]

PAXboy

What you say is true BUT, there Is no reason that 'LL could not become a hub on the lines of Amsterdam, Paris & Frankfurt.
All that it needs is the infrastructure to support it - basically terminals, taxiways & runways. Once it has these, IF it EVER does, then it can start competing with those other airports as a hub (international & domestic).
After all, they have all overtaken 'LL because they have the required facilities (allowing them to open & develop the routes which 'LL lacks).
Why shouldn't 'LL claw back some of the business once it has been developed appropriately to enable it do so ?
As I understand it, that is the suggested reason for an extra runway at 'LL - to enable it to expand to meet the, apparent, demand ie new, & more frequent, services & connecting them to domestic & European destinations. Certainly, in the Channel Islands, we are hoping to be able to connect with the myriad of Heathrow destinations (as opposed to the paucity of ' KK ones). I am sure that the same applies to other provincial cities etc. which do not presently have links to 'LL.

[davidjohnson6]

Easyjet have approx 44 % of summer 2015 ATMs at Gatwick. Add Monarch, Thomas Cook and Thomson, and you hit almost 57% of ATMs. Gatwick is not exactly known for being empty at peak times. Granted a 2nd runway would mean many more ATMs become possible, but this is still a sizeable number of slots

The moment Easyjet start offering connecting flights (ie airline bears risk of delays and luggage can be checked through) is the moment Gatwick might have a non-zero chance of becoming a hub. Until then, Gatwick hasn't got a hope of becoming a hub

[LNIDA]

Its worth pointing out that Norwegian have a 105 routes from LGW that you can through ticket i.e. the airline takes the risk including USA destinations, of course most tickets are point to point, but you'd be surprised of at the number using Norwegians's connecting hubs of which LGW (for Norwegian) is fast becoming one.

[adfly]

I have to say I was surprised at the number of passengers connecting onwards to Europe when I flew LGW-LAX-LGW with Norwegian last year. Heard passengers talking about going onwards to Bergen, Barcelona, Rome and Malaga.

[AirportPlanner1]

I made a similar point to dj6 offline the other day.

There is a fixation on hubs and networks as we know them.

But what if something came along that was a game-changer? EZY/FR getting into long-haul and connections in a big way? Smaller aircraft with long range coming on the market making LBA/SOU and any other regional airport inbetween non-stop to NYC plausible?

Then is an extra runway at LHR compared to LGW/STN so important?

[PAXboy]

AirportPlanner1
But what if something came along that was a game-changer?You are absolutely right - something might.

However, in corporate life, events actually move more slowly. From first flight to being the mainstream, how long did these take to gestate to maturity?


Boeing 747 in 1970
Southwest Airlines started operating in 1971
Boeing 767 in 1982
RyanAir adopted their current policy (LCC) in 1986
Internet: began to be open to the public from the early 1990s

It is generally thought that the 'next big thing' is visible some 10 years before it is reported as being the next big thing. So - what is just starting out now? What new little gem is being quietly polished now - to burst upon the stage?

Given the hideous amounts of money imnvolved in changing regulations for aircraft operations and airports - or the cost of developing new equipment, we can be sure that that wil not happen for some times.

I agree that if some LCCs go full time for interlining etc that WILL be a change. But, not all of them will do it and it would only be a return to form of the way the legacies have operated from the start. Some LCCs want to graduate to being 'the big boys' but most of them don't because they have made their money as LCCs and seen the legacies lose money.

In my view, the UK is small and continuing to reduce in global influence and trade and demand is not going to increase dramatically in that route. Meantime, the M4 corridor and companies who have based themselves around LHR - will continue but not expand and certainly not until this wretchedy stupid right wing 'lets cut ourselves off from Europe' things is past. That is another story but, having it loom will freeze many things and, even if we get the yes vote - another set of years will have passed and more confidence ebbed and more chances lost.

Lastly, I spent 27 years working in corporates, both British and international. The one thing I saw more than anything else was 'caution'. The companies that really rock the boat? They are very few and very far between. Since the crash of 2008 (whose effects we shall be feeling for at least another five years) not many companies want to try something new.

Ergo - I think that nothing will happen.

[Fairdealfrank]

BHX5DME.

Interesting on the news today David Cameron apparently "Warming" to a 2nd runway at Gatwick.

Will be very interesting if the airport commission report back that due to high pollution around LHR , Gatwick is their preferred option to recommend for a 2nd runway.

However nothing is that simple.


That would suggest that Airports Commission has been leaned on and its findings interfered with.


With Easy Jet saying they would prefer a 2nd runway at LHR and many long haul scheduled airlines seemingly just using Gatwick to lodge until they can get into LHR there are problems.

Low cost airlines probably don't contribute enough to re pay for a 2nd runway at Gatwick and what percentage of flts are low cost out of their 50% perhaps ?

Another article claiming last week that therefore a congestion charge may be needed around Gatwick to pay for a 2nd runway and curb pollution.

Gatwick’s management would need to considerably increase airport charges for airlines in order to finance a second rwy. The problem is that many may not put up with it and leave: no frills to Luton or Stansted, non-UK legacy to Amsterdam, etc..


The govt may have to try and force the big scheduled airlines to migrate from LHR to Gatwick, but how would that work .. has failed before ?

Star Alliance get moved to to Gatwick but Sky Team you can stay at LHR.. would Star Alliance buy that with probably higher business passenger revenue out of LHR.

Oh if we could only go back to the glory years at LGW in the 70s/80s/90s when it was a much fairer balance between the two. Be interesting to see how it develops and how many years it takes to get a new runway up and running in the SE !


Nigel


Can’t be done, the days of government-owned carriers and government-owned airports and a heavily regulated aviation industry are over.

Also bear in mind that in the "glory years at LGW in the 70s/80s/90s", all the UK carriers that were denied access to Heathrow and forced to use Gatwick as a base went belly-up.

Only VS didn’t, because it was able to move its base to Heathrow.

[Fairdealfrank]

The last few pages of debate have been interesting, well-informed and comprehensive.

Unfortunately there has been no explanation of how a second rwy at Gatwick (and by implication, no third rwy at Heathrow) even starts to address the basic problem of no spare rwy capacity at the UK's only hub airport.

[LadyL2013]

I've been through Gatwick twice recently. I do love the airport.

But it might as well change it's name to 'Gatwick: Sponsored by Easyjet'. If you didn't know otherwise, you'd think they were the only airline there.

Most disappointed to see they've built in front of the North departure lounge. You can't see any aircraft or airfield at all :(

[LNIDA]

Yes easyJet certainly are the largest by a long way but there is plenty of variety to be found behind the sea of orange.

Davis commission

I think that if it has to be an additional runway at LHR or LGW then it should be LHR. I would prefer an additional runway at both airports if that is possible within the airspace constraints. The noise and pollution concerns whilst valid will become less of an issue over the next 20 years, aircraft will become quieter and vehicle emission will reduce with new generation of petrol engines coming to the market, stop/start technology is already having an impact.

If LGW gets the go ahead then i can't wait to see them tearing down the beehive :D:D:D

[compton3bravo]

Might have a problem with that LNIDA it is Grade 2 Listed.

[LNIDA]

Looks like they won't need to pull it down after all , apparently its safe even with the safe guarded area..............

[davidjohnson6]

Westjet to begin flying to LGW in spring 2016. Routes and times to be announced in summer 2015

[VickersVicount]

Westjet to begin flying to LGW in spring 2016. Routes and times to be announced in summer 2015
Thats great, WestJet are really going places. I understand they are delighted with the GLA route to YHZ/YYZ so early in the season.

[LGS6753]

For LGW services they will be using 767-300.

[Fairdealfrank]

I think that if it has to be an additional runway at LHR or LGW then it should be LHR.
Indeed, goes without saying, doesn't it?!



I would prefer an additional runway at both airports if that is possible within the airspace constraints. The noise and pollution concerns whilst valid will become less of an issue over the next 20 years, aircraft will become quieter and vehicle emission will reduce with new generation of petrol engines coming to the market, stop/start technology is already having an impact.The problem with a second rwy at LGW as well as a third at LHR is not airspace constraints.

The question is: can the LGW management build another rwy (and of course the associated terminal and other infrastructure) without jacking up airport charges to such an extent that carriers are driven away?

It is said that the rises in airport charges there would be "eye-watering", and much higher than any LHR equivelant, and the question applies whether the LHR management are permitted to build a third rwy or not.

LHR can clearly do this without problems because of the availibility of sufficient numbers of premium business pax for the airlines to offset any rise in airport charges, and because there are many carriers that wish to operate flights (or more flights) from there, so any airlines leaving will be quickly replaced and slots filled.

[LAX_LHR]

Air Canada rouge starting daily YYZ-LGW from 19th May 2016.


Canada-Gatwick hotting up again it seems.

[Skipness One Echo]

To be clear, seasonal summer leisure capacity, but welcome none the less.

Air Canada Adds Lyon, London-Gatwick to its Growing Global Network - Jun 25, 2015 (http://spr.ly/6011BBwe9)

Isn't twitter a useful tool lax_lhr :)

[daz211]

Well done LGW.
but can all 3 carriers survive on the LGW-YYZ route ?
Westjet, air Canada rouge and air Transat, well I guess
We can look forward to a price war 😜

[Flightrider]

Just needs Norwegian to go on LGW-YHM and then it would be a full scale battle.

[vectisman]

Does anyone have any news regarding the completion date of the new pier 1 in Gatwick's South terminal? Would appreciate any news. I have tried an internet search but cannot find any recent updates.


Many thanks
V.

[rutankrd]

Well done LGW.
but can all 3 carriers survive on the LGW-YYZ route ?
Westjet, air Canada rouge and air Transat, well I guess

Back to the 70s/80s

Wardair, 747s and 707s (If were luck a 727 !) CP-AIR with 747s and DC8s and variety of 707s from Quebecair, PWA , BCAL and BMA - That was capacity !

Later Nationair and Worldways and others.

[Fenders]

Not forgetting ONA, Trans International, Saturn, World Airways, Capital Airways and maybe a couple of others I have forgotten.

[Una Due Tfc]

DUB is a smaller airport with a far smaller catchment and it has those 3 airlines plus EI on the route. LGW can definitely make that much capacity work, and probably multiple daily too

[jackieofalltrades]

True, but Dublin doesn't have another airport (ie Heathrow) nearby with BA and Air Canada operating multiple flights daily with 777s, 787, 747 and 767 as competition to the catchment area.

[Una Due Tfc]

True, but Dublin doesn't have another airport (ie Heathrow) nearby with BA and Air Canada operating multiple flights daily with 777s, 787, 747 and 767 as competition to the catchment area.

Agreed. However until recent years the majority of travellers between Ireland and Canada went via Heathrow, year round direct flights seem to have ended that.

There's enough people in the world who avoid LHR whenever possible (myself included), the market on this route is enormous, especially in Summer. Yes the other airport up the road is the fourth busiest in Europe, but London is the biggest city in Europe right? Also AC and BA are in the more upmarket game, the 3 in LGW are the budget carriers, so they're chasing different pax really. In my (utterly irrelevant) opinion, all 3 carriers on this route will flourish.

[CabinCrewe]

The UK-Canada market is waaay different to even 10 years ago. The days of huge VFR capacity are over. GLA too at one point had a daily Air Canada mainline 747 to YYZ along with a collection of other operators even using 747s ie Air Club and short lived Fortunair. I cant see what has suddenly changed to support massive increases in capacity. Something will give or reshuffle, it always does.

[tubby linton]

On twitter I am reading lots of reports about a power failure in the South Terminal causing mayhem, does anybody have any details?

[jackieofalltrades]

There's enough people in the world who avoid LHR whenever possible (myself included), the market on this route is enormous, especially in Summer. Yes the other airport up the road is the fourth busiest in Europe, but London is the biggest city in Europe right? Also AC and BA are in the more upmarket game, the 3 in LGW are the budget carriers, so they're chasing different pax really. In my (utterly irrelevant) opinion, all 3 carriers on this route will flourish.

You make a good point. And I would love to see all three work at LGW as well as the LHR carriers. I agree, I tend to avoid LHR if I can help it, but then again I also will avoid LGW if I can. It's been several years since I've had the 'pleasure' of passing through LGW.

[LNIDA]

You should try LGW again, utterly transformed over the past few years

[ayroplain]

You should try LGW again, utterly transformed over the past few years
I agree it is a much, much better experience now but still a bit to go. The WiFi is appalling (non-existent, really) and these power outages shouldn't be happening.

Also, I don't know who is responsible for gate allocation at South Terminal but, really, the likes of Gate 11 for 189 FR pax?

[jackieofalltrades]

Thanks for the heads up Lnida, I will give it a try again sometime in the future. Can't be worse than passing through LHR lately!

[LNIDA]

Yes the WiFi is crap, but most area have good 4G coverage, the team of helpers at the rail interchange do a great job of helping point people in the right direction for tickets and trains.

The big transformation at the South terminal is the security area and the by and large polite helpful staff, the LHR equivalent have faces like a slapped arse.

Of course the shopping has expanded, but its not Mall like at CPH

FR have only a handful of flights at LGW so gate 11 is seldom an issue

[ayroplain]

The big transformation at the South terminal is the security area and the by and large polite helpful staff, the LHR equivalent have faces like a slapped arse.
Credit where credit is due. I use only the South terminal and the Security area bears no resemblance to what it was like before where you'd often arrive into the terminal from the station to be met by a bloke holding a pole at the top of which a notice proclaimed "End of Security Queue". Kudos also to the staff who make what is probably the worst part of air travel into something bearable and they do it with a good heart. I'd certainly recommend it to jackieofalltrades over the LHR setup.

On the other hand, and with so many good things happening there, it is difficult to understand how, in this day and age, providing a simple-to-use fast free WiFi seems to be beyond their capabilities.

[Skipness One Echo]

Why no flight departure screens in the South Terminal landside?

Only airport on Earth I have (not) found this. Actually there's one in a coffee shop upstairs but you know what I mean.

[Una Due Tfc]

Why no flight departure screens in the South Terminal landside?

Only airport on Earth I have (not) found this. Actually there's one in a coffee shop upstairs but you know what I mean.

There was one behind the bar downstairs last time I was there, very handy!

[kar42]

Why no flight departure screens in the South Terminal landside?

Only airport on Earth I have (not) found this. Actually there's one in a coffee shop upstairs but you know what I mean.

Only a theory but might it be to encourage people who want that information to proceed through security and therefore spend more time in the (shopping mall) departure lounge. That would fit with the coffee shop/bar installations as you might be tempted to become a customer while looking at the screen.

[LN-KGL]

Norwegian will in May 2016 start four weekly LGW-BOS. For now only a press release in Norwegian is available:
Pressemeldinger - Norwegian (http://media.norwegian.com/#/pressreleases/norwegian-lanserer-direkterute-mellom-london-og-boston-1190338)

[adfly]

Seems like a logical new route for Norwegian, good to see more flights to the US from LGW. I wonder if OAK will be launched 3 weekly, as the BOS route will presumably require a 3rd 787 to be based?

[True Blue]

So Norwegian has carried about 200k pax to the USA over the last 2 years. That's a lot of lost revenue to the boys up the road. Wonder how long it will be before they decide that it's getting too big and that maybe there is a market to the USA from Lgw after all?

TB

[All names taken]

There is probably a 'market' to the US from every point on earth.
It's a question of whether it's a worthwhile one for the business model you run.
Obviously in this case, the answer is 'No'

[crewmeal]

Wonder how long it will be before they decide that it's getting too big and that maybe there is a market to the USA from Lgw after all?


How many times have BA tried to make JFK a success over the decades? How many times have US carriers tried to other points in the US over the years? Why is it DY can make a go of it yet National carriers can't? I guess it's a low cost carrier that can make money these days. Sad.

[Feet on ground]

Only time will tell if they are making any money.

[LNIDA]

All i would say is that you'd be staggered at the amount of transit traffic that Norwegian are generating from their European feed into LGW for transatlantic services.

[Hangar6]

200 pax DUBLGWLAS on Saturday , no wonder the bearded one is "anxious" about IAG now they have EI , expect a huge EI growth to feed IAG inLGW next summer from every airport on the Island of Ireland ,

320 x two , split 100 each roughly

[CabinCrewe]

how do you know historically the majority werent already interlining with BA and may just continue to do so, rather than it being a sudden shift away from connecting to VS? They havent even merged yet!

[Skipness One Echo]

200 is more than the connecting A320 can hold, assuming it's not an A319 (!) That's also the majority of seats on a B777. Seems like a one off if true.

Btw aside from TPA and LAS, eveything else going West is in the Caribbean so not going to have an impact on US flights.

Why would I be staggered? They're offering good connections on their own metal from across Europe, DY do connections, EZY don't. Flip that one then, if they have to fill them using feed on a loco model, does DU or DY get the benefit of the revenue?

[True Blue]

Isn't it amazing the vested interests at work now to convince us that just about nothing at Gatwick can work or is ever likely to work. Almost 40m pax pa are using Lgw now but we are told that these are mainly low fare wanting a cheap weekend tourists. So why would any airline bother providing any service at all, no money to be made here. Meanwhile, up the road at Lhr, you don't get low fare tourists on flights there, just high yielding business travellers. We are led to believe that few connect through Lgw, yet I did that myself last month using EI from Bhd then BA to Bodrum. There were quite a few on my flight connecting with BA to Orlando. My wife and daughter followed me on the same route a few days later. When mention is made of connecting traffic at Lgw it is questioned.

What I do see is a massive effort to protect big interests up at Lhr. The airport itself, airlines, executive clubs etc have all made big investments there and are now trying to protect themselves by convincing as many as possible of the poor prospects for Lgw.

So the American carriers that used Lgw for decades lost money but decided to provide a service to us anyway? Or is it that they didn't make as much money as they would like?

Did Virgin and BA fly these routes for decades making a loss but did so out of the kindness of their hearts? If they were making a loss, was this due to the yield they could get or was the problem with them, costs too high?

Air China and Korean are quoted as examples of airlines trying to make new services work, but couldn't. How could they tell after one season yet we are told that it can take up to two years to see if a route is going to work. Was the issue that the Lgw services damaged the Lhr services more than was expected? Vietnam moved to Lhr recently, the Caa stats don't show this big increase in numbers we were led to believe would happen. Yet Icelandair and Turkish Airlines are never mentioned at Lgw. Maybe they haven't yet found out how much money they are losing at Lgw.

The world changes but there seems little recognition of that when it comes to possible success for Lgw. I get the impression there are many scared of a possible new competitor down the road. I hope Lgw is a major success, along with Norwegian.

One thing I know I don't like is where business thinks it has an entitlement and no one else should challenge. That is where the paying customer ends up being worse off.

[kcockayne]

True Blue

You made some valid points. Yet, the FACT remains that many of us , from the non-UK regions, who are forced to connect through Gatwick (because we have no Heathrow service), would very much like Heathrow to expand & offer us a service because, there are precious few non-stop flights to places in USA, Canada, Asia, Africa & Australasia to connect with through Gatwick. Nor are there ever likely to be!
Oh yes, & to connect with flights to these areas we have to make a time consuming trip to & from Heathrow by coach-&, often, have to make a night-stop at Heathrow.
Another FACT is that the carriers which did operate to these places from Gatwick abandoned it for Heathrow at the first available opportunity !

[LadyL2013]

It will be interesting to see if direct long haul services to new or 'unusual' destinations at LGW will see other airlines start to offer direct services from LHR. For example Thomson are re-starting direct service to Costa Rica and currently are the only airline that fly direct from the UK. Although you could argue that it's a purely tourist route, it's perhaps less so than many others. If I was trying to get to CR, I'd go direct through LGW, rather than going from Heathrow to connect through the US and add several hours to my journey.

I don't think LGW is anywhere near an arseache as people make out. I've quite easily connected through LGW on many occasion.

[wallp]

Could this continued transatlantic growth eventually persuade BA to have another go? Does the 787 give them a chance to make routes work that have previously failed?

[True Blue]

Kcockayne

do you believe that during the period that Lgw was owned by BAA that Lgw and Lhr were promoted equally? Or was Lgw promoted as the waiting room to Lhr, a term we hear often. I remember a few years back when BA used to print a timetable, getting a copy of their worldwide edition. Where a service ran from both Lhr and Lgw, the connections via Lhr were always far better promoted. So, in my opinion, neither BAA or BA were that serious about promoting Lgw as an airport for transfers. Now we have an operator there giving the idea of transfers full support and there are a lot of vested interests who do not like it. I use Lgw to transfer a lot, usually on Easyjet flights, never had a problem and I understand the risks I am taking. I am also of the opinion that if Norwegian is successful to N America we will soon see others going there to. And if Lgw gets the second runway, they will all pile in as they will not want to miss out on one of the best aviation markets in the world. I would love Lgw to get the second runway to just watch how quickly all talk of taking expansion plans to Paris, Amsterdam etc melts away. I give it a few days/weeks.

[EI-BUD]

Interesting discussion re LGW US services.

The fact is that LHR is more attractive for a whole host of reasons means that when the airlines get the opportunity to move over they do. But compounded to this is the fact that in many cases it is a foreign carrier who moves and usually will not operate the same route to 2 London airports eg Vietnam Airlines. Hence, LHR becomes the one.

I disagree that LGW USA routes were unprofitable, but the shortage of routes , and a big reduction in airlines mean that it's much harder than before to get airlines into routes. And given the scale of LHR ops to the US any other London airport is a hard sell. Let's see how DY get on, but the fact here is that their point of difference has to be on price and nobody thus fas has sustainable cracked low cost long haul ..

[LNIDA]

Price is of course a motivator and Norwegian have always used keen pricing to build a customer base in markets where they operate, but as the load factor builds then so does the pricing.

For many LGW is more convenient than LHR, a lot of connecting traffic can do so from through LGW, Norwegian have well over a 100 destinations on offer from LGW, so its not just long haul consolidation outbound that is getting a boost.

The big difference with long haul compared to the likes of BA and many other carries is that they price punitively if you only book one way, see below..

LHR JFK LHR out on the 16 Oct back on the 23rd with BA £467.06

One way LHR JFK on the 16th £1174.00 with BA

LGW JFK LGW same date (low fare + includes bag and meal) £491.00 basic fare ££391.00

One way LGW JFK on the 16th (low fare +) £209 ......or £182 JFK LGW with Norwegian, so it will cost you just under £1000.00 more with BA


So BA are cheaper for a return trip, not sure if you get a meal? with them but not much in it. Why should you pay 2.5 times the price to travel one way??

This is the damage that Norwegian will do over time, they have a long haul low fares calendar the same as easyjet/Jet2/FR which prices each leg as a separate trip, so if the timing suits you better fly out with one airline fly back with another

[Logohu]

Why should you pay 2.5 times the price to travel one way??

Agreed, based on that example surely anyone travelling oneway who really wants to fly BA would just buy a return ticket and throw away the return coupon !!

[Skipness One Echo]

Not too many people go to the US with a one way ticket, they tend to notice.....

[LNIDA]

Your missing the point here, of course you need to have a return ticket unless your a US citizen, but it doesn't need to be with BA or one of their partner airlines, you might be going on from the USA point of arrival to another country, you might be flying back to another European country that BA does not serve.

Most of the legacy airlines do the same thing, this will have to change, many people across Europe now fly one way with one carrier and the return with another, one airline might only offer an early morning flight back but another might offer a return latter in the day.

[Skipness One Echo]

I understand your logic but the truth is that most people still book a return ticket. There is a cohort who play the proces and book one way with carrier a and back with carrier b but that's on short haul. The general market outside the uber proce savvy has a different mindset. If I am in JFK and I miss my flight, it's not the same as being in Beauvais and missing my flight. There's a continent of difference here, people's expectations are a little different.

You're right the market is ever changing, but I don't really expect things to change too much on that front.
Is Norwegian long haul making money yet? #lovetoknow

[LN-KGL]

You will know more in three days Skipness One Echo. According to Norwegian's Financial Calendar the Second Quarter Results (April - June 2015) will be released on 16 July 08:30 European Summmer Time.

[j636]

With fuel prices good if they are not making cash now (even if they are building a customer base) then it would be worrying. If there is demand for long haul loco service really a customer base should be there.

[kcockayne]

TrueBlue

I don't know if Gatwick was marketed as a second choice to Heathrow, but I do know that it was "the waiting room for Heathrow". New carriers only went there whilst they were waiting to get into Heathrow eg ANZ, CPX, UAE, KAL, USA, DAL, VIR, AAL etc. This was because they perceived that there was more demand from Heathrow. And, they were correct.
If we are going to get more connecting flights from Gatwick, especially if there is a second runway, then I am all for it - since Gatwick is, physically, much easier to get from terminal to terminal & because we still won't have any services to Heathrow.
I don't think that it will attract any airlines & routes from Heathrow - unless Heathrow doesn't get a third runway. Even then, it will only be because there is no room for expansion from Heathrow; & it will be the less prestigious services that make the transfer.

[Fairdealfrank]

So the American carriers that used Lgw for decades lost money but decided to provide a service to us anyway? Or is it that they didn't make as much money as they would like?

Did Virgin and BA fly these routes for decades making a loss but did so out of the kindness of their hearts? If they were making a loss, was this due to the yield they could get or was the problem with them, costs too high?
Maybe there is money to be made at LGW, but there’s always more to made at LHR.


True Blue

You made some valid points. Yet, the FACT remains that many of us , from the non-UK regions, who are forced to connect through Gatwick (because we have no Heathrow service), would very much like Heathrow to expand & offer us a service because, there are precious few non-stop flights to places in USA, Canada, Asia, Africa & Australasia to connect with through Gatwick. Nor are there ever likely to be!
Oh yes, & to connect with flights to these areas we have to make a time consuming trip to & from Heathrow by coach-&, often, have to make a night-stop at Heathrow.
Another FACT is that the carriers which did operate to these places from Gatwick abandoned it for Heathrow at the first available opportunity ! Yes, just one of the many reasons why a third rwy at LHR is desperately needed.


It will be interesting to see if direct long haul services to new or 'unusual' destinations at LGW will see other airlines start to offer direct services from LHR. For example Thomson are re-starting direct service to Costa Rica and currently are the only airline that fly direct from the UK. Although you could argue that it's a purely tourist route, it's perhaps less so than many others. If I was trying to get to CR, I'd go direct through LGW, rather than going from Heathrow to connect through the US and add several hours to my journey.

I don't think LGW is anywhere near an arseache as people make out. I've quite easily connected through LGW on many occasion.
LGW is not an arseache at all, but it is mostly "self-connect".

If travelling to Costa Rica with a change of aircraft, much better to go via Spain (say BA/IB via MAD) rather than via the USA (e.g BA/AA via MIA). International to international connections in the USA are the real arseache!

Direct ex-LGW on BY is fine.


I would love Lgw to get the second runway to just watch how quickly all talk of taking expansion plans to Paris, Amsterdam etc melts away. I give it a few days/weeks.
Would also be quite happy for a second LGW rwy, but not at the expense of a third at LHR.


The big difference with long haul compared to the likes of BA and many other carries is that they price punitively if you only book one way, see below..

LHR JFK LHR out on the 16 Oct back on the 23rd with BA £467.06

One way LHR JFK on the 16th £1174.00 with BA

LGW JFK LGW same date (low fare + includes bag and meal) £491.00 basic fare ££391.00

One way LGW JFK on the 16th (low fare +) £209 ......or £182 JFK LGW with Norwegian, so it will cost you just under £1000.00 more with BA


So BA are cheaper for a return trip, not sure if you get a meal? with them but not much in it. Why should you pay 2.5 times the price to travel one way??
It’s just different fare structures. Legacy carriers’ one way fares are never discounted, only the full flexible economy fare applies, with one exception: round the world specials.

Round trips tickets can be discounted, and sometimes heavily. They usually have various restrictions.

No frills carriers, on the other hand, are based on one way fares.


I don't know if Gatwick was marketed as a second choice to Heathrow, but I do know that it was "the waiting room for Heathrow". New carriers only went there whilst they were waiting to get into Heathrow eg ANZ, CPX, UAE, KAL, USA, DAL, VIR, AAL etc. This was because they perceived that there was more demand from Heathrow. And, they were correct.
Not "was" the waiting room, "is" the waiting room.

[canberra97]

Kcockayne

It would have been far easier for you to have used the official IATA codes rather than the likes of UAE or CPX.

You do realise that until 1991 LHR was closed to all new airlines so airlines such as you mentioned had no choice than to operate from LGW.

Everyone says that long haul can't make a go of it at LGW but airlines such as Continental operated successfully from LGW from 1982 to 2007 until they moved there London operation to LHR after it was opened up to more U.S. Airlines after Bermuda II was retermed.

Sure yields are what airlines are chasing and what with alliance connections LHR will be the obvious choice regardless of a third runway.

Sean

[kcockayne]

Canberra97

That's the whole point of what I am saying. Practically all of the long haul airlines have only used Gatwick because they had to. Once the restriction had been removed, & they were able to get slots, they all moved to Heathrow.
That's not going to change if Heathrow gets another runway. If it does, watch out for more long haul from Heathrow, & not from Gatwick.
The demand is at Heathrow. There may be more low cost carriers operating long haul from Gatwick, but the Legacy carriers want Heathrow.

[kcockayne]

I should have said, "that's not going to change if Gatwick gets another runway".

[True Blue]

So we vote to keep all the power with Lhr and in relation to routes to N America especially, the power with the big 3, BA/AA, VS/DL and UA. Make sure as far as possible that it is almost impossible for new entrants to enter the market to offer something different/better service. I refer you back to LNIDA's post no 2641 and his/her snap research on fares. Keep competition at bay and allow the big boys to charge what they can. One thing you need to remember about capitalism is this, it doesn't always behave well. In fact, often it goes too far and as a country, we are still recovering from some of the bad effects of it from almost 10 years ago. And I believe strongly in capitalism myself. However, I do not accept the arguments around Lhr, this is nothing more than protectionism. And if Lgw was to get the second runway, it would become a hub in no time, because the airlines would have nowhere else to go and would not walk away from London. So the question is, for these airlines who tell us that routes out of Lgw, that they have operated for decades, lose money. Do they lose money or not make as much as they would like? There is a difference.

Questions are asked frequently about Norwegian and profitability. What about Virgin. I read a post very recently stating that if Virgin had not been allowed to fly from Lhr, they would have gone under. Getting into Lhr saved them. So why did they continue services from Lgw if they were losing money there so badly. Why following the last review, was it that it was Lhr routes that were cut. And why, since they had access to that saviour called Heathrow, did they still need to team up with Delta?

Sorry not to accept the party line here, but I have seen enough over my life to know when all the cards are being stacked so as to favor one party and make sure another party is kept at bay. UK PLC will regret eventually giving the 3rd runway to Lhr as we will all pay through higher fares. One final question. Why, when oil prices have fallen so heavily, has fares and additional charges not? And I know about hedging.

TB

[kcockayne]

VIR kept operating services from Gatwick because they could not get the extra slots at Heathrow.

[Skipness One Echo]

Guys stop mis-representing the arguement. It's not that airlines cannot make money flying long haul out of Gatwick, quite the contrary. As has been stated on numerous occasions, it's a matter of profitability. If a carrier has experience of flying LGW-xyz and LHR-xyz and the latter is a more profitable experience AND they see no need to serve London from two airports, they choose LHR.

In terms of BA and VS long haul, what remains at LGW is predominantly long haul beach holidays which need little feed, a good niche for Gatters. The loss making myth kicks in with those occasional wars and disasters which push airlines to the edge and they realise it was only not being exclusively at LGW which kept then afloat.

What DY is pioneering, is long haul low cost with connections, to do this, they have a very low cost base, which is why they were trying to pretend to the American authorities they were Irish and not Norwegian, so they could staff their new B788s with low cost pilots. No, really, let's not pretend otherwise chaps, they're ruthless, they need to be.

[kcockayne]

skipness

Exactly so - which is what I have been trying to say. I have absolutely no argument with what you are saying. Established, long haul, traditional carriers prefer Heathrow. They could make money at Gatwick - but more at Heathrow.
Give those who are, or were, at Gatwick half a chance & they switch to Heathrow.
No extra runway at Gatwick is going to change that; provided that there is space for them at Heathrow.

[Feet on ground]

The carriers that operated long haul services successfully from Gatwick historically, did so because the majority of the routes served from Gatwick were not operated in parallel from LHR, that dynamic has changed and that is why long haul from Gatwick is significantly more challenging now and avoided by most carriers.

[kcockayne]

Also true.

[LN-KGL]

Skipness One Echo:
Is Norwegian long haul making money yet?


It seems like Norwegian Long Haul starts to make money now since Norwegian now says: Reached critical mass and expect positive contribution going forward.


Below is a link to the Q2 2015 Presentation
http://www.norwegian.no/globalassets/global/english/aboutnorwegian/ir/doc/interimreports/2015/norwegian-q2-2015-presentation.pdf

[Skipness One Echo]

Thanks for that, one would expect no less than a huge jump in revenue given the growth phase we've seen, however profitability, not being shouted about.
This is as expected, there's still a lot of pain there I think, time will tell.

"Good load and improving yield for long haul" - no number attached is a tell.
"Expect positive contribution from long haul going forward" - again some wriggle room in there.

"Aiming for further unit cost reductions" - BOHICA (google it)

[True Blue]

So referring back to S1E's comment on 15th July. We can agree that it is probably the case that they can make money out of Gatwick, but they think they can make more using Lhr. Now we are back to my point about the fact that by awarding the 3rd runway to Lhr, we are providing the big airlines and Lhr with the almost monopoly situation to make us pay more.

But why would Lgw be a less desirable airport to put capacity into than say a UK provincial airport? It is generally accepted that Lgw is situated in a wealthy area and also has London to draw from. So would it still be a worse option than say, Newcastle, Glasgow or Manchester? Or Shannon? I have no idea of the answer to this.

TB

[True Blue]

I see Smartwings are increasing their Prague service to daily from mid-September.

TB

[anothertyke]

I don't understand why increasing the capacity of a slot constrained airport is to the advantage of the incumbent monopolists. 50% of the new slots have to go to new entrants (as defined). BA's current 62% slotholding will be diluted to around 50%. Surely R3 is more likely to be pro-competitive than a second runway at Gatwick. Where am I going wrong?

[kcockayne]

You aren't. But, Heathrow will soon fill up again !

[Fidel Castro]

Anyone know what the low flying twin loitering at the end of 26L was doing today?

[nigel osborne]

Clearest signal yet that the Govt are to give LHR the nod for a 3rd runway.

The PM has selected a committee to look into the findings of the Airport Commission report that favours LHR.

He has left out all MPs that are opposing the 3rd LHR runway and had secret talks behind the scenes with Boris Johnson on the topic yesterday ...

PM says he will announce his final decision before this XMAS after his committee reports back.


Nigel

[Fairdealfrank]

Clearest signal yet that the Govt are to give LHR the nod for a 3rd runway.

The PM has selected a committee to look into the findings of the Airport Commission report that favours LHR.
Not convinced, sounds like more dithering and indecision, the old "do nothing" scenario. The Airports Commission has done the "heavy lifting" over the last three years.

Would make more sense to do the announcement over the summer recess then use the national infrastructure procedure and get it built.


He has left out all MPs that are opposing the 3rd LHR runway and had secret talks behind the scenes with Boris Johnson on the topic yesterday ...
That makes sense but do we need yet another committee? What a waste of public money!


PM says he will announce his final decision before this XMAS after his committee reports back.
the long grass beckons.

[CabinCrewe]

...Heathrow long grass

[LadyL2013]

Lots of delays of about 2-3 hours today. Why? Summer getaway volumes?

[davidjohnson6]

Anyone care to comment on Easyjet opening Gatwick-Friedrichshafen for the 2015-16 winter ski season ?
With BA, Easyjet and Monarch all operating the same route, is it perhaps becoming over served ?

[LAX_LHR]

Emirates will go all A380 from Jan 1st.

EK seem to have gotten a growth spurt at LGW to go from all B77W to all A380 within a short time frame.

[vectisman]

I believe all three will be ok on Friedrichshafen route. It is likely tour operators will use the scheduled services more than the charter/IT services used previously. BA can probably rely on avio redemptions and frequent fliers. Easyjet and Monarch probably more in competition with each other.
V.

[toledoashley]

Freidrichshafen is a good alternative to Innsbruck and Zurich for Western Austrian and Eastern Swiss Ski resorts. People don't mind too much as long as the transfers remain on the reasonable side.

[strawberry Ribena]

Lax lhr any media release for that? Booking system still showing 777 and 2 a380s

[AMM626]

Emirates Plans All-A380 Operation to London Gatwick from Jan 2016 (http://airlineroute.net/2015/07/28/ek-lgw-jan16/)

[Charley B]

Great News:)
Another rotation in the afternoon, if so busy would be nice!!
Sure EK can fill up 4 a day here!

[canberra97]

I was just doing a dummy booking for London to Valencia on British Airways for the 18th to the 22nd March 2016 and found that there are direct flights with BA from LGW during that period.

I was expecting a transfer flight in Madrid but was surprised that BA were offering a schedule to Valencia, although I have not seen any press release regarding the resumption of LGW to VLC.

BA last flew to Valencia under the GB Airways Franchise and if so this route is long over due especially during the period I wanted to go to Valencia it is 'La Fallas' weekend.

Anyone have any more information regarding the resumption of BA flights to Valencia in 2016.

[bjones4]

I've not seen any press releases but they're starting out at 4 weekly for now and that increases to 6 next summer, current schedule is:

BA2794 LGW-VLC 09:00-12:20 320 x23xxxx
BA2795 VLC-LGW 13:30-15:00 320 x23xxxx

BA2794 LGW-VLC 06:45-10:05 319 xxxx5xx
BA2795 VLC-LGW 11:10-12:40 319 xxxx5xx

BA2794 LGW-VLC 07:25-10:45 32S xxxxxx7
BA2795 VLC-LGW 13:30-15:00 32S xxxxxx7

[canberra97]

BJones4

Thanks for the quick response, that is the schedule I saw so BA are returning to Valencia, I have always thought it was a city missing from their Spanish network so I am very pleased to see it's return.

I did dummy bookings for the 18th to 22nd March 2016 and tried BA, Easyjet and Ryanair and BA came out the cheapest once you added baggage and reserved seats on the latter two so I am booking it later with BA.

Sean

[nigel osborne]

Crikey where is all the EK freight displaced from 77Ws going from MAN and LGW unless they are adding more 77Fs at LHR ?


Nigel

[cornishsimon]

I suspect we will soon see a dedicated Ek freighter service to one of the MAG airports, either STN or MAN.



cs

[LAX_LHR]

In a recent interview to air cargo world magazine, the UK and Ire head of EK cargo said that LHR, LGW and MAN would be all A380 by next summer (2/3 stages of that plan is now complete), that there would be a dedicated cargo flight to either MAN, LGW or STN, and that as most of EK's cargo is South East bound, London was the preffered option.

He also said that Until next year, cargo space on the B777's at BHX/GLA and NCL would be maxed out.

Given STN's superior cargo handling ability, my bets on STN.

[cornishsimon]

Thinking out loud here but LGW does have decent nighttime capacity, I know LGW doesn't really handle freighters currently but would they want this sort of night time business ?


cs

[LAX_LHR]

But that night time capacity is likely QC rating capacity constrained. With EK cargo using B77F's and B744F's, might be hard to utilise those slots on a regular basis.

[Skipness One Echo]

They're not exactly blessed with additional B77F capacity though. QR went for STN, LGW doesn't even have a proper cargo terminal. They might just manage another couple of random LHR slots in addition to the twice weekly B744F.

[Need to Know Basis]

Can you clarify as to " LGW does not have a proper Cargo Terminal ". Take Fed Ex out of STN and just leave STN Cargo Terminal. LGW Cargo is bigger ?

[Skipness One Echo]

STN has on warehouse parking for multiple MD11s and B747s. LGW has remote parking for heavies but no dedicated aircraft cargo parking, indeed the 150s are being dug up!

[TurboTomato]

Speaking as someone who sits under 26L final approach, day in, day out during office hours, I can't remember if I've even seen a dedicated freighter come in/out of LGW. It's always struck me as a bit odd that there seems to be no cargo (other than airline hold stuff) to/from LGW.

Edit: perhaps just the Hercules that I've seen a few times?

[Charley B]

I have seen DHL(airpost) yellow 757 a few times go down the approach, and a couple of years ago I remember a 767 freighter coming in here most evenings..think it was associated with a shipping line..came in and then went on elsewhere..but dedicated cargo freighters are very few and far between..EK freighter arriving here would be nice:)
I do remember DAS air cargo DC10 and alpha juliet Kilo being here a good few years ago..late 90s..they used to shake the house when they went over Brighton..those were the good days!

[Musket90]

In years gone by LGW has had many pure freighter operations... Tradewinds CL44/B707..IAS Cargo Britannia/B707/DC8..Scimitar B707..Pelican B707..BCAL Cargo B707..Affretair DC8..Trans Meridian DC8..Northwest B747..Das Air B707/DC10 to name a few. Sadly times move on.

[Seljuk22]

Is EK allowed to operate more than 3 daily flights to LGW or is it like LHR where they don't get any furthr slots (at the moment)?

[wallp]

Surely the only reason EK would be restricted to 3 flights a day would be lack of slots during the day. Sure, Gatwick has peak periods but there must be times when slots are available. Presumably, going all A380 mitigates any need for more flights from Gatwick, at least for now?

Makes me wonder if others might eventually look at the success Enirates has found at Gatwick and try to replicate it? Wasn't Qatar considering returning to Gatwick? I wonder if someone like Ethiad might also make a go of flights from Gatwick too?

Further afield, Norwegian aside, the airport continues to struggle to gain and hold onto long haul carriers. Presumably, given the chance, Garuda would switch to Heathrow like Vietnam and others before them. Does Gatwick have to content itself that it will never offer a wide range of long haul destinations, beyond the holiday flights which BA and Virgin focus on or the lower cost ops of Norwegian?

[Skipness One Echo]

Yes it does unless there is a colossal change in customer behaviour. QR and EY are focussed on increasing A380s through LHR, the QR plan to have another go at LGW was dropped.
Even when EY did offer LGW it was on the old A343, again a world away from their stated intent of all A380 to London.

Anyone know if the North Terminal improvements are completed in terms of the new departure route? It stops about 3/4 down, before what was Gate 57. Is there a plan to enhance Gate 55 as well? It's a huge and welcome change.

[adfly]

BA are launching San Jose, Costa Rica from next May. Will operate 2 weekly in the summer and 3 weekly next winter.

[True Blue]

Must be just in the waiting room for a move to Lhr, in 10+ years time!!

[davidjohnson6]

Why does San Jose have to be moved to Heathrow ? It's likely to be aimed at Europeans who want to go on holiday to Costa Rica to see a bit of jungle / wildlife and then spend some time on the beach. San Jose as a city really isn't that great a place to visit.

Costa Rica has not traditionally been a place where the very wealthy crowd go on holiday (e.g. Barbados or Indian Ocean islands) and I doubt there's a huge amount of business travel between Costa Rica and non-UK Europe which will be better served via London compared to Madrid. Seems to me like a good solid candidate for a long haul leisure route at Gatwick for years to come...

[LadyL2013]

Interesting. I said just the other day on here that I thought once TOM made the leap and started direct, other airlines would follow. BA to San Jose, TOM to Liberia gives a lot more chouce allbof a sudden ti the UK market. BA on the 777, TOM on the 787.

We're off to CR next year direct and can't wait.

[True Blue]

No appreciation of a little bit of sarcasm.

Another forum stating another 777 moving from Lhr to Lgw next summer.

TB

[Skipness One Echo]

Actually if LHR gets a third runway against BA's wishes, might BA shift as much of the LGW operation round as possible to keep up market share and freeze out EZY?

[True Blue]

So we are at least 10 years away from R3 at Lhr. So what do all these airlines that have been hanging around for years waiting on slots at Lhr do? Continue hanging around whilst the market moves on and expands or give Lgw a try?

Which will it be?

TB

[ATNotts]

So we are at least 10 years away from R3 at Lhr. So what do all these airlines that have been hanging around for years waiting on slots at Lhr do? Continue hanging around whilst the market moves on and expands or give Lgw a try?

Which will it be?

TB

Given the frequency, speed and reliability of the rail service between Birmingham International and Euston, I would have thought that a good option for LHR's waiting room could well be BHX - but of course, it isn't called London.

[davidjohnson6]

A one way off peak ticket from Gatwick to London Bridge or St Pancras bought a few minutes before departure costs 10 pounds.
A one way off peak ticket from Birmingham airport to Euston a few minutes before departure costs 24 pounds for a train taking 2 hours or 50 pounds for a fast train.

Yes you can buy a ticket in advance for less but if your plane lands late, your ticket is invalid. Planning on allowing 2 or 3 hours between landing and an onward train departing is not popular.

The Stansted Express sells tickets for 8 pounds one way if booked in advance - you need specify only the day of travel, not the exact time of train. Deutsche Bahn in Germany have a scheme allowing one to purchase a fairly flexible train ticket to the airport provided it's bought from an airline in conjunction with a flight ticket.

If there were a similiar scheme to the Stansted Express or the German Rail Air scheme, I imagine BHX would become much more viable for people travelling for leisure and based in London.

[ATNotts]

A one way off peak ticket from Gatwick to London Bridge or St Pancras bought a few minutes before departure costs 10 pounds.
A one way off peak ticket from Birmingham airport to Euston a few minutes before departure costs 24 pounds for a train taking 2 hours or 50 pounds for a fast train.

Yes you can buy a ticket in advance for less but if your plane lands late, your ticket is invalid. Planning on allowing 2 or 3 hours between landing and an onward train departing is not popular.

The Stansted Express sells tickets for 8 pounds one way if booked in advance - you need specify only the day of travel, not the exact time of train. Deutsche Bahn in Germany have a scheme allowing one to purchase a fairly flexible train ticket to the airport provided it's bought from an airline in conjunction with a flight ticket.

If there were a similiar scheme to the Stansted Express or the German Rail Air scheme, I imagine BHX would become much more viable for people travelling for leisure and based in London.

I take your point, but surely it would not be beyond the wit of Virgin West Coast and an airline to make some sort of commercial agreement along the lines of the DB - in the days of Swissair I recall the SBB had a similar agreement, and I would expect that most European countries have a more flexible, and easier to use ticketing and transfer system than we endure here.

All this, of course requires an "integrated transport system", which by and large is an alien concept to transport planners in the UK!

By far the biggest hurdle to jump however is getting people (both airlines and their customers) to appreciate that there is life outside of London, but without turning this thread into some sort of "Manchester-esque" path I won't make any further comment in that regard!

[True Blue]

Never mind Manchester, there is little aviation life outside Heathrow for many!

[DaveReidUK]

I would have thought that a good option for LHR's waiting room could well be BHX - but of course, it isn't called London.

Don't worry, it will be soon - London's tentacles are reaching out up the M40, they've got halfway so far:

http://www.reubenbrothers.com/wordcms/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/oxford-airport-3.jpg

[TOM100]

First Great Western have such a rail deal with SQ (and I think
BA) thru PAD

[adfly]

Looking at what is currently on sale up to 6th June, there appears to be the following;

New York JFK - Daily (up from 6 weekly this year)
Los Angeles - 4 weekly (Mon/Thurs/Fri/Sun)
Orlando - 2 weekly (Tues/Sat, up from 1 weekly this year)
Ft. Lauderdale - 1 weekly (Weds)

Boston is not on sale yet but announced to be 4 weekly, so if an extra aircraft is added then there is potentially up to another 3 weekly slots to be used depending on where and when the aircraft get days to rest. My bets would be on a 2/3 weekly flight to Baltimore or Oakland. Will be interesting to see which routes get the larger 787-9's too.

[canberra97]

Adfly

Regarding Norwegian long haul ex LGW for summer 2016.

Have you not missed SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico?

Sean

Btw If anyone hasn't been to Puerto Rico before I thoroughly recommend it as it's a beautiful island with lots to do and see:)

[adfly]

This route appears to be winter seasonal as it stands currently.

[davidjohnson6]

Royal Air Maroc's website lists a non-stop scheduled route from Gatwick to Rabat, presumably in competition with Ryanair's Stansted-Rabat route. Seems to be 3x per week starting Monday 26 October.
Anyone know anything about this ?

[Charley B]

EK 11/12 the early morning arrival ,will be an A380 from 15/8/15 for 2 weeks..it will then revert back to a 777, until 1/1/16 when it becomes a permanent A380 flight.:)

[goldeneye]

Caribbean Airlines are to end services to London Gatwick early 2016.

Source (http://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/39445-caribbean-airlines-to-end-b767-european-ops-in-1q2016)

[Need to Know Basis]

Caribbean Airlines CEO wants to. The Trinidad Government disagrees. Some way to go on this announcment.

[Cazza_fly]

British Airways has announced a new year round service from Gatwick to Porto starting February 2016. It will initially operate 4x weeky rising to 6x weekly from the summer schedule.

[adfly]

It is good to see the days of BA cutting its LGW base seem to be comfortably in the past now. I wonder if they will look into acquiring any more A320's next year in addition to the extra 777?

For 2015/16 the following have been added so far:

Bodrum
Cagliari
Dalaman
Heraklion
Porto
Providenciales (Transferred from LHR)
Rhodes
San Jose (Costa Rica)
Sharm el Sheik
Valencia
Vienna

[cornishsimon]

I predict another 5-10 A320/1 mix second hand order plus 772s are not unheard of ln the second hand market ........

cs

[adfly]

Can't see BA picking up any second hand 777's in all honesty. I expect the odd one will make the hop across the M25 as the 789's get delivered to LHR though!

[True Blue]

"Passenger numbers were highest in London with 40,600 and 73,500 people flying out of Gatwick and Heathrow respectively."

The above is taken from an Emirates press release. As Lhr has 5x A380 and Lgw has 2x A380 plus 1 B777 daily, is Lgw running with a higher load factor than Lhr, at least for the month of July?

TB

[vectisman]

BA also added Fuerteventura, Funchal and Seville this year.


V.

[Fairdealfrank]

Further afield, Norwegian aside, the airport continues to struggle to gain and hold onto long haul carriers. Presumably, given the chance, Garuda would switch to Heathrow like Vietnam and others before them.
Almost certainly, and there may be sufficient premium business for GA to do LHR-CKG non-stop.


Does Gatwick have to content itself that it will never offer a wide range of long haul destinations, beyond the holiday flights which BA and Virgin focus on or the lower cost ops of Norwegian?
Yes, whether LHR gets a third rwy, LGW gets a second rwy, or, as is most likely, no one gets anything.


Actually if LHR gets a third runway against BA's wishes, might BA shift as much of the LGW operation round as possible to keep up market share and freeze out EZY?
Probably, would expect VS to do so as well. BA could use VY to take on U2.


Given the frequency, speed and reliability of the rail service between Birmingham International and Euston, I would have thought that a good option for LHR's waiting room could well be BHX - but of course, it isn't called London.
Not yet.


It is good to see the days of BA cutting its LGW base seem to be comfortably in the past now. I wonder if they will look into acquiring any more A320's next year in addition to the extra 777?

For 2015/16 the following have been added so far:

Bodrum
Cagliari
Dalaman
Heraklion
Porto
Providenciales (Transferred from LHR)
Rhodes
San Jose (Costa Rica)
Sharm el Sheik
Valencia
Vienna
PLS was ex-LHR via NAS once/week, now it's ex-LGW via ANU once/week and goes twice/week in the winter 15/16 season.

[compton3bravo]

All those new BA short haul routes are in direct competition with the Orange mob, no wonder Mr W does not want them at Heathrow, bad enough at Gatwick.

[vectisman]

However British Airways must be feeling quite confident about operating their leisure routes from Gatwick in competition with Easyjet. I say this because at the moment it is BA introducing the routes in competition with Easyjet and not the other way around, as has been the case in the past.
As for Easyjet at Heathrow or the 4th runway, they are both about 10 years away (if ever). Plenty of time still make money at Gatwick. And if Gatwick should get the 2nd runway rather than LHR its 3rd things could become very interesting.


v.

[Skipness One Echo]

I think it's more that BA are reintroducing routes that they used to fly not too long ago, and if not BA, then GB Airways. If LGW (God save us) gets a second runway, then it will stand empty much of the time IMHO.

They cannot command a premium to pay for it so even if charges remain in line with today, I don't see a queue of airlines wanting into LGW. Anyone wanting in is already there. What market dynamic would change with an expanded LGW if LHR continues to bleed new long haul to FRA, CDG and especially AMS? I genuinely and honestly am baffled as to where they think all this traffic will come from as the only growth we see at LGW is in the loco sphere, and yes, that's BA short haul too. (a good thing!)

A few more BA heavies and more Norwegian B787s do not need a new runway and EZY don't want to pay for one.

[BAladdy]

According to airlineroute.net BA's flight from LGW to TRN on 30th September is to be the final flight to be operated by a LGW based 737

British Airways to End Boeing 737 Service in late-Sep 2015 | Airline Route (http://airlineroute.net/2015/08/13/ba-737-sep15/)

According to the post on the airlineroute.net website, Planned last British Airways’ Boeing 737 operation for each route during the month of September 2015 as follow.

London Gatwick – Algiers Last 737-400 flight on 24SEP15
London Gatwick – Amsterdam Last 737-400 flight on 15SEP15
London Gatwick – Cagliari Last 737-400 flight on 14SEP15
London Gatwick – Catania Last 737-400 flight on 25SEP15
London Gatwick – Faro Last 737-400 flight on 26SEP15
London Gatwick – Glasgow Last 737-400 flight on 21SEP15
London Gatwick – Ibiza Last 737-400 flight on 01SEP15
London Gatwick – Jersey Last 737-400 flight on 21SEP15
London Gatwick – Malaga Last 737-400 flight on 23SEP15
London Gatwick – Malta Last 737-400 flight on 27SEP15
London Gatwick – Marrakech Last 737-400 flight on 24SEP15
London Gatwick – Naples Last 737-400 flight on 22SEP15
London Gatwick – Rome Last 737-400 flight on 16SEP15
London Gatwick – Seville Last 737-400 flight on 13SEP15
London Gatwick – Thessaloniki Last 737-400 flight on 27SEP15
London Gatwick – Tirana Last 737-400 flight on 11SEP15
London Gatwick – Turin Overall final 737-400 service on 30SEP15
London Gatwick – Verona Last 737-400 flight on 29SEP15

[True Blue]

Skipness

You and a few others have been very consistent in your views re some parts of the Lgw operation, especially long haul.

On the BA thread I asked when BA started flying to Orlando. One reply said about 1987, I have no idea if it is right or wrong, but have no reason to believe the reply was not given in good faith.

On another forum there is a discussion running on the topic of BA transferring both the Orlando and Tampa flights to Lhr, on the basis that would be a much better result. The attitude is almost how dumb to keep those routes at Lgw. That is a view that comes through on a regular basis re any long haul route out of Lgw. It will fail at Lgw and anyway, Lgw is only the waiting room for a transfer to Lhr. The point has been made quite widely that any long haul route out of Lgw will lose money.

I have been following that argument for years now but found it difficult to understand, never mind believe. You see, Ba has had almost 30 years to transfer Orlando to Lhr, but so far, have chosen not to. So is it being suggested that BA are flying to Orlando 2 daily and losing or not making much money? Before the mass transfer to Lhr, Delta, American and Continental flew into Lgw for what, maybe 2 or 3 decades. For many years they had multiple flights a day with wide bodies and some of those routes also had a BA service. So are we suggesting that the American carriers flew into Lgw and were making no/very little money. But the point has always been made that there is more money to be made at Lhr, which I cannot dispute as I have no idea. And I know they had to use Lgw during this period.

But then on the "another runway at Lhr" thread, more light was shed on this idea that there is more money to be made at Lhr. In that discussion, if any of you have followed it, it becomes clear that fares are higher for a reason, limited supply. And because supply is maxed out, airlines can charge a higher fare there. Now we are starting to talk monopoly pricing. And what is clear is that routes into Lgw are probably not loss making, but make less because history has put Lhr into too dominant a position. So with BAA making sure Lhr was in a dominant position, neglect Lgw, get the co-operation of many of the other parts of the travel industry, you get a situation that is self-fulfilling and suits all at Lhr. Peddle a story that Lgw is just bucket and spade, Avios redemption, few if any business pax, lack of connectivity, keep packing them in at Lhr where it has been "full" for about 25 years and it all remains on message. Note the key issue here, fares are higher at Lhr. And who pays those higher fares?

Easyjet's submission to the commission has been quoted. Do you think Easyjet were speaking for themselves or for the good of joe public? Of course they don't want to pay for a new runway at Lgw, but would help to pay for a new one at Lhr where they say they would start services from. So what do they want out of this? Well, by the time a new runway appears at Lhr, demand will almost fill it straight away I bet. Many here believe that BA will move everything as will Virgin. Maybe also some of Easyjet plus more foreign carriers. So they will get access to higher fares at Lhr because by that time it will be near capacity constrained again. back to the supply and demand situation we have today, route as many through Lhr as possible. Meantime, Lgw will be decimated and the message that routes at Lgw fail will be trumpeted louder than ever. So those of you who support expansion at Lhr are basically supporting the idea that all of us should pay higher fares for ever, especially on long haul, to keep the establishment happy.

And no I don't agree that if the new runway goes to Lgw that airlines will go elsewhere. They will be in in a flash in spite of what they say. Because the truth is, long haul out of Gatwick does make money for the most, just not as much as some greedy airlines would like.

Please do not take my post personally, it is not meant to be.

TB

[BAladdy]

On the BA thread I asked when BA started flying to Orlando. One reply said about 1987, I have no idea if it is right or wrong, but have no reason to believe the reply was not given in good faith.

BA started ops to Orlando before 1987. In fact I believe that BA started flights via Miami in 1985. I am basing this date on firstly this article that I found online from July 1984 which gives info on how Orlando and Tampa were both competing to become BA's next destination in Florida

http://www.upi.com/Archives/1984/07/23/Tampa-Orlando-battle-for-British-Airways/4946459403200/

I have also found this post on airlineroute.net. The post details BA's Inter-Continental network for the W85/86. During that season BA operated a 747 2 x weekly to Orlando Via Miami and a 747 4 x weekly to Tampa via Miami. Flights to both Orlando and Tampa operated using the same flight numbers, BA293/BA292.

1985/86: British Airways Inter-Continental Network | Airline Route (http://airlineroute.net/2011/01/25/ba-w85/)

Hope this helps answer your question. Sorry I couldn't find a exact date

[Skipness One Echo]

You and a few others have been very consistent in your views re some parts of the Lgw operation, especially long haul.
The BA Beach Fleet makes rather good money apparently, focussed on high end point to point leisure, only up against one other direct competitor in that space in VS and with TOM and TCX in the charter space. Good Gatwick fit, predominantly holiday flights.
On another forum there is a discussion running on the topic of BA transferring both the Orlando and Tampa flights to Lhr, on the basis that would be a much better result.
It might make a difference to the bottom line, yields might be higher, but if they're predominantly P2P and doing well at LGW and moving to LHR wouldn't add to connectivity or make much more profit then there's no pressing need. If BA need to pile more aircraft into LHR to maintain market share with a third runway, that dynamic changes. The cost benefits of consolidating at one long haul base now have a pressing need to defend the postion at LHR as well and so a move might be more likely if and when we see new concrete.

So is it being suggested that BA are flying to Orlando 2 daily and losing or not making much money?
Noooooo, it's long haul P2P leisure filled with no / little need for feed, a holiday flight fitting the LGW profile rather well.

So are we suggesting that the American carriers flew into Lgw and were making no/very little money.
Adam Thomson and Richard Branson, as well as Laker himself were prevented from operating from LHR and kept at LGW for a reason, to protect BA at LHR where the yields were higher. SRB admits VS would have gone under after 1991 if they had not been granted LHR access that year after the first Gulf War. They moved their US hub operations to LHR as well as prime business destinations like NRT. The Beach Fleet routes were introduced later, MCO and the Carribean have no pressing need to move as the Upper Class cabin is way smaller on the LGW B744s. (It's 14C versus 48C out of LHR). Again, good LGW fit in long haul leisure, no feed required.
The US carriers were legacy network carriers feeding their own hubs. Each has served LGW and LHR, indeed DL,US, NW and CO operated dual ops after 2008. As soon as they compared XYZ-LHR with XYZ-LGW, the LGW operation was dropped. Immediately with American, after one season with CO and NW and much later with US and DL. The end result was that however well they'd done at LGW, US-LON ops were better served out of LHR and flying out of LGW was diluting yield. The ongoing LGW-JFK with BA was the lowest yielding of the multiple LON-NYC flights they flew, this was made semi public as certain people were fed up being asked "But why don't you bring back LGW-JFK?" (for a fourth try!)
Different fit in this case, larger paid for premium cabins used in this market and serving airports with connections to partner airlines via US hubs. This sits better at LHR.

And no I don't agree that if the new runway goes to Lgw that airlines will go elsewhere. They will be in in a flash in spite of what they say. Because the truth is, long haul out of Gatwick does make money for the most, just not as much as some greedy airlines would like.

What airlines are you thinking of? Long haul hubs with partners, LGW has no alliance connectivity whatsoever. SKYTEAM are strong at LHR T4 and hub at AMS/CDG, STAR use LHR T2 and hub at FRA / ZRH. Genuine question, what airlines will be in there in a flash? LHR runway three might be filled up overnight but the churn in newcomers will be huge before it settles down. There's not that many long haul carriers in a queue to serve London.

I can think of LAN Chile, Aerolineas Argentinas as newcomers.
easyJet would certainly have a go, unlikely to see Ryanair. Norwegian Air Shuttle might have a crack at both long and short haul if they're still around.
But the list of new realistic and likely new entrants is not enormous. The existing carriers would l-ove to drop in new destinations but again, it would year likely be organic over a 8-10 year period rather before things settle.
The big (quiet) opportunity seldom talked about is going after the lines of B747Fs and B777Fs that AMS, CDG and FRA have.

[roverman]

A friend of mine and his family living in Manchester are flying LGW-MCO this month and paying £1000 each rtn on BA. Asked why he is not using the VS 2 x daily 747 MAN-MCO he replied that the fare is £1600 rtn!!! That is certainly high-end leisure, even at BA's fares.

[Ian Brooks]

They would be lucky to even get seats ex MAN that`s why the fares are so high.

Ian

[LadyL2013]

Does anyone have an up to date stand/gate map. Seen lots of aircraft (including my parents one last week) allocated ones that don't appear on the maps that I have seen.

[canberra97]

LadyL2013

Have you tried the NATS website or AIS site and looked under the category NOTAM then look under airfield charts, you should find your information as they are always updated.

Sean

[LadyL2013]

I looked on NATS, but can't find it, unless I'm being completely blind.

EDIT: Yes, I was being completely blind. Thanks!

They are part of the Pier 5 reconfiguration., which very annoyingly blocks any view of the airfield in the North departures. I hope this is not the case for the lounges too?

[TSR2]

Asked why he is not using the VS 2 x daily 747 MAN-MCO he replied that the fare is £1600 rtn!!! That is certainly high-end leisure, even at BA's fares

Just checked VS MAN-MCO return later this month and price is well below £1000.

[Skipness One Echo]

The AIS is out of date alas but will updated soon for 555 Northwards. There are very good airfield views now, much better than before IMHO. Where are you looking from???

[davidjohnson6]

Fares UK-Orlando

Virtually every school in the UK is on holidays for the duration of August. I say virtually just to cover myself in case there's some really unusual school which doesn't follow normal terms.
Demand amongst children to get visit Mickey Mouse is usually very high.
Trips to visit Florida theme parks are normally booked months in advance.

Could the above three points have anything to do with why fares to Florida are currently showing as very high for later in August ?

Fares on leisure routes always spike during school holiday periods. Most of the year however, kids are in school rather than on holiday, so leisure routes at Gatwick have to be able to substantially earn their keep without reliance on the month of August.
Perhaps looking at fares for November or May (excluding half term) might give a better idea as to how the BA long-haul routes at Gatwick are doing ?

[danielsirrom]

A friend of mine and his family living in Manchester are flying LGW-MCO this month and paying £1000 each rtn on BA. Asked why he is not using the VS 2 x daily 747 MAN-MCO he replied that the fare is £1600 rtn!!! That is certainly high-end leisure, even at BA's fares.

Hence there were at least 5 families on our BHX-JFK-MCO routing a couple of weeks ago with American Airlines! £500 return paid, VS/BA wanted £1000+ for non stop(from LGW or MAN)

[Skipness One Echo]

Don't assume all LGW long haul is a families and kiddies route to the House of Mouse. Much of the traffic is in winter to the Caribbean, BGI has a capacity leap each October once summer is over. MCO might be cheaper in Nov, not so for many of the rest.

[True Blue]

Skipness

In response to your reply.

Re new airlines, I have no idea, but I have read reports where Lhr claim to have about 30 waiting for slots to get into Lhr. Who they might be, no idea.

Can we agree that barring major shocks, like war/terrorist or economic, that the market will probably grow? And we have been told it will take 10 years to get a new runway at Lhr, maybe longer but I am 99% certain it will not be sooner. Just a UK thing.

So as the market grows and airlines want to add capacity, what do they do. Lhr is full, we are told. To me, Lgw is a better bet than Stn, although Lgw is very busy as well.

Keep in mind this growing market, but the new runway goes to Lgw. What do the airlines that need to add capacity do? Walk away? Or the new ones with maybe new routes?

In my opinion, there is no way they will take that extra capacity to a continental airport. Away from one of the best markets there is. I am also working on the basis that it s not just possible to put an A380 on instead of an A321. BA is probably the biggest player here.

So, in your opinion, what do you think they would do if the runway went to Lgw? Ignore the opportunity or go for it?

Thanks

TB

[LadyL2013]

Skipness, we were there at the end of May and the entire North Terminal departure lounge view was blocked by the new Pier building. Granted the 3 restaurants at the end towards the runway were blocked off, so the view might have been OK there.

What is the view like from No. 1 North?

[SWBKCB]

Virtually every school in the UK is on holidays for the duration of August. I say virtually just to cover myself in case there's some really unusual school which doesn't follow normal terms.

In the "really unusual" country of Scotland (still in the UK), schools go back well before the end of August.

Way off topic for LGW, but this mismatch in holidays generates a lot of cross-border movement (of pax and aircraft) because of the different peak seasons.

[Tigger4Me]

...but this mismatch in holidays generates a lot of cross-border movement (of pax and aircraft) because of the different peak seasons.

Guilty as charged m'lud! I needed to make a trip over from Spain towards the end of August last year. It actually worked out cheaper to fly into GLA and hire a car to get to EMA than fly direct. As a bonus I had a drive through the beautiful Lake District with a lovely pub lunch en route paid for out of the savings and with cash to spare.

The flight back from LGW (to get back on topic!) was after the English schools were back so at more reasonable price.

[Skipness One Echo]

Keep in mind this growing market, but the new runway goes to Lgw. What do the airlines that need to add capacity do? Walk away? Or the new ones with maybe new routes?
What people tend to do is throw "airlines" together as one mass. They're not. Some will only serve LHR, long haul airlines connecting the UK to the world have been proven time after time after time to do less well at Gatwick. This means their competitors at LHR have them for breakfast and they fail. So to get long haul airlines into the UK, the overwhelming place they choose is LHR. If they can't get in, they add capacity at a partner hub like Skyteam AMS/CDG or STAR FRA/ZRH. This is because in this market, the big boys need to be in an alliance and they stick together. You might say look at Garuda, they serve LGW. They do, and they fly an almost empty B777 out most days except weekends when it's full with local LGW-AMS traffic.

So LGW isn't an option on that market, any new runway at LGW would be for locos and holiday flights. Nothing wrong with that per se, but to get the biggest bang for the economy, it needs to be LHR runway 3. LGW can have another runway if it wants, I see no objection tbh, but I do not for a moment believe the rubbish from GIP about LGW being a hub. Ever.

[kcockayne]

Skipness is correct. Gatwick will never be an equivalent airport to Heathrow. Unless, you close down Heathrow & build the 3rd. Runway that it should have had - at Gatwick. & then you'd need a 4th. Runway at Gatwick !

[The96er]

Aviator have been appointed as the new ground-handling agent to British Airways at London Gatwick. This will be for Ramp, Operations and Dispatch services, effective from 9th November 2015.

Swissport didn't last long then. I wonder which station will be next. Menzies are under an improvement notice for the EDI/MAN/GLA contract I believe.

[True Blue]

I think we will just agree to disagree. There is no way that I believe any airline, faced with a decision which is expand into Lgw or lose out on a growing market will walk away from London and put additional capacity elsewhere.

Nor do I accept the figures being quoted as being the economic benefit to Britain. On far too many occasions in the past we have had these wonderful forecasts that have never come near the mark. Think about it, how could you forecast economic benefit maybe 30 years from now, in the tens or hundreds of billions.

If you guys are correct about the runway going to Lhr, I would also suggest that it carries risk for the likes of Ba and the other large carriers there. How will they feel if they are joined by new Lcc'c like Easyjet and Ryanair?

I suggest that as these two must soon be running out of decent options for expansion and getting into Lhr allows for a host of new opportunities. Over the next 10 years both will change, it is the natural order of maturing as a company. Ten years from now they could be offering connections and long haul. Note recent comments from Fr that they would like to offer connections for long haul.

Whichever airport gets the runway, it will bring changes, opportunities and risk for some.

TB

[Skipness One Echo]

There is no way that I believe any airline, faced with a decision which is expand into Lgw or lose out on a growing market will walk away from London and put additional capacity elsewhere.
OK, it's a case of market behaviour, it's worth trying to understand this as it drives the dynamics of the London airports. Let's take a real example, China Southern want to add capacity into London, they have ample capacity at AMS at a SKYTEAM hub, do they
a) Try Gatwick
b) Keep one flight at LHR and expand AMS as they can't get more LHR slots.

It's b) alas.

Now Air China tried LGW and walked away as soon as they got a second LHR flight. Korean Air did EXACTLY what you are thinking, put capacity into LGW and found (this should not have been a shock as this is what killed BA's hub without the hubbub) that premium passengers wouldn't touch Gatters if they could choose LHR. Hence LGW flights were pulled as they were badly underperforming relative to LHR. The "growing market" can be served in long haul much better via a partner hub than a direct LGW flight.

Let's name one single long haul network carrier looking to launch service from Gatwick currently? I can't think of any sadly.
Perhaps Air Canada Rouge, right market for them, point to point leisure against Air Transat. I look forward to seeing them but will customers choose to connect with them over Air Canada? Does it matter in that market as I bet they'll do rather well.
Sadly LGW actually just lost another one airline as Caribbean Airlines are pulling out as the B767s are going back at end of lease next spring.

You're right in a short haul sense, the LHR business case is predicated on long haul which is why hub capacity needs to be there and not at Gatwick where not one single airline has managed to build a sustainable and profitable hub. Gatwick is brilliant as point to point short haul airport, the North Terminal rebuild is impressive as it's optimised for easyJet, it is going to be the jewel in the network for the Orange guys. All modern and airbridges for most services most days with many more A320s / B737s along the pier as stands are built to accomodate two narrow bodies instead of one heavy. It's a really improved experience, for the market they're good at !!!!

If you guys are correct about the runway going to Lhr, I would also suggest that it carries risk for the likes of Ba and the other large carriers there. How will they feel if they are joined by new Lcc'c like Easyjet and Ryanair?
easyJet might do at LHR what they did to BA short haul at Gatters, BA would be very wary of EZY getting in. Ryanair don't want the hassle, even their new focus on larger airports doesn't favour heavily slot constrained airports, they even walked away from most non-Irish LGW routes.

[kcockayne]

it's not a question of anyone being right, & the runway going to Heathrow. It probably won't go anywhere !
Neither is it a question of airlines not being willing to use Gatwick (as opposed to Heathrow); although most long haul " prestigious" airlines would move to Heathrow as soon as the opportunity occurred.
Nor is it a question of being "anti-Gatwick". In my case I would love Gatwick to get another runway & lots of long haul services - because it would save me the trudge from there to Heathrow to connect !
It is simply that an extra runway at Gatwick might benefit Gatwick, in terms of more "bucket & spade" & European ex- pat routes but, otherwise, it will fail to attract any airlines from Heathrow &, if it does get " prestigious airlines " coming in with new long haul services, they will move to Heathrow if they get the chance.
On the other hand, a new runway at Heathrow will attract new long haul services by airlines who want to be there. It may also get new domestic services to connect with them.
" Prestigious airlines" won't move to Gatwick unless Heathrow is closed.

[Fairdealfrank]

High-end beach fleets

A friend of mine and his family living in Manchester are flying LGW-MCO this month and paying £1000 each rtn on BA. Asked why he is not using the VS 2 x daily 747 MAN-MCO he replied that the fare is £1600 rtn!!! That is certainly high-end leisure, even at BA's fares.

They would be lucky to even get seats ex MAN that`s why the fares are so high.

Ian
High season, what do you expect. No discounting in the school summer holidays!!



Hence there were at least 5 families on our BHX-JFK-MCO routing a couple of weeks ago with American Airlines! £500 return paid, VS/BA wanted £1000+ for non stop(from LGW or MAN)
Flights requiring a change of plane at a hub are usually cheaper than non-stop.


So as the market grows and airlines want to add capacity, what do they do. Lhr is full, we are told. To me, Lgw is a better bet than Stn, although Lgw is very busy as well.

Keep in mind this growing market, but the new runway goes to Lgw. What do the airlines that need to add capacity do? Walk away? Or the new ones with maybe new routes?
Yes, yields are higher at LHR than at LGW, they are also higher at AMS, CDG, FRA, MAD then at LGW. Look at the destinations available at these airports that are not available at LHR/LGW, particularly long haul.

If chasing yield that is not available because of a lack of capacity at LHR and the expense of slot acquisition, why would carriers not go LHR’s competitor airports? At least the expense of slot acquisition is avoided.



In my opinion, there is no way they will take that extra capacity to a continental airport. Away from one of the best markets there is.
Why? The evidence is all around us! Most longhaul use LGW as a "waiting room" for LHR.


Nor do I accept the figures being quoted as being the economic benefit to Britain. On far too many occasions in the past we have had these wonderful forecasts that have never come near the mark. Think about it, how could you forecast economic benefit maybe 30 years from now, in the tens or hundreds of billions.

If you guys are correct about the runway going to Lhr, I would also suggest that it carries risk for the likes of Ba and the other large carriers there. How will they feel if they are joined by new Lcc'c like Easyjet and Ryanair?It’s about the LAST thirty years. A third rwy at LHR is about catch-up: a fourth rwy is about the future.

As for no-frills carriers, unlikely to see FR at LHR (the talk of providing connecting flights was for the non-existant longhaul at STN). As for U2, would expect a big VY presence at LHR to take it on, all speculation of course!


it's not a question of anyone being right, & the runway going to Heathrow. It probably won't go anywhere !
Regretably, this is probably a very accurate comment. Indecision, dithering and delay will strike again.



" Prestigious airlines" won't move to Gatwick unless Heathrow is closed.
LHR isn’t closing which is why Boris Island was a non-starter, so it’s a moot point and by no means guaranteed. LHR closure would be the gift that keeps on giving for AMS, CDG, FRA, MAD, etc..

[cornishsimon]

Hearing BA are to launch LGW-LIM next year. 3 weekly.
cs

[True Blue]

I am reading that Lim has been announced by BA from Lgw.

TB

[LGWAlan]

Wed/Fri/Sun in Amadeus - BA2239/38

Fri/Sun 1155-1830/2000-1420
Wed 1350-2025/2155-1615

[LadyL2013]

That's not going via SJO by any chance is it? Both launch on the same day.