GATWICK

[adfly]

Flight time of 12 hrs 30 would say otherwise, an interesting addition for BA at LGW, and not one that many people (including myself) would have foreseen.

[LadyL2013]

I guess that will be a big hit with the Gap Year crowd. Although that many a week, surprises me. I can't see them filling that many flights.

[wallp]

Wow, Lima - what a fantastic addition to the BA operation. Am I right in thinking that this route was once served from Gatwick in the B Cal days?

I wonder if BA might look at other South American routes from Gatwick too - perhaps Columbia, Chile?

[canberra97]

Wallpaper

British Airways have previously operated LGW to LIMA from 1987 upto until about 2001 with a short break in some years so this actually is a resumption of the route.

Although LGW to Lima was actually a route inherited by BA when they took over the South American routes from BCAL in 1983/4 and then operated from LHR until the time when BA had a second hub at LGW during Rod Eddingtons reign with all South American routes operating from the airport up until 2002.

Former BCAL destinations from GATWICK, although some were not taken on by BA when they took over BCAL flights to South America in 1982/3.

ARGENTINA
Buenos Aires

BRAZIL
Recife
Rio De Janeiro
Salvador de Bahia
São Paulo

CHILE
Santiago

COLOMBIA
Bogota

EQUADOR
Guayaquil
Quito

PERU
Lima

VENEZUELA
Caracas

[toledoashley]

Certainly from a retail point of view people are being more adventurous with their holiday time, not just the usual Caribbean, Indian Ocean - but combining more in their holiday.

There is certainly an emerging market for places like Costa Rica and Peru, and you could add Vietnam/Cambodia to that list as well.

[LadyL2013]

I'm certainly surprised it's taken this long for places like Costa Rica to get a direct flight, it's been a rapidly growing market for at least 5 years now. I have to give TOM praise for being the first to dip their feet in the water with various routes from LGW such as Liberia and Phuket.

[canberra97]

LadyL2013

You are aware that BA actually had direct flights from LGW to SJO Costa Rica from 2000 to 2001 but were dropped shortly after 9/11 so this is actually a resumption of the route.

Sean

[True Blue]

Been reading about the two new BA long haul routes out of Lgw on other forums. It is amazing the comments, that started almost immediately, wondering how quickly they will move to Lhr. Is it not possible for these people to think that maybe BA are quite happy for them to operate from Lgw, even for the long term? It seems that some are of the opinion that nothing is worthy if not operating from Lhr.

TB

[Skipness One Echo]

Right routes for Gatwick, no need to be at a constrained two runway LHR.

[kcockayne]

TrueBlue

I've been looking, but I can't find a single comment since the announcement of these two new routes that suggests that they would move to Heathrow.
where did you see these ?

[Skipness One Echo]

Is BA's LGW-Las Vegas being dropped then? Not bookable beyond end of the summer and nothing for 2016.

[cornishsimon]

Didn't BA drop LGW-LAS during winter 14/15 ?




cs

[BCALBOY]

BA LGW/LAS ops day 2/4/7 in Nov 2015 , days 1/3/6 in S2016 ,this is bookable on BA.COM.

[CabinCrewe]

Not sure where youre looking. Nothing for winter but freely bookable thereafter thru August 2016

[Skipness One Echo]

Iphone app via BA.com says "We do not fly from Gatwick to McCarran Intl" and offers LHR dates instead, looking at dates in May. Bug?

[Steviec9]

I'm booked on BA2277/6 LGW-LAS-LGW in April. Just checked, flights showing on Ba.com web but at horrific prices, I paid nothing like what's showing, so either some background data changes going on or I've done the deal of the century with BA by booking so early! :D

[wallp]

Is there a chance BA might take on Norwegian on some of the routes it serves from LGW particularly JFK? Norwegian seem to be having some success with the route, going daily so could BA have another go at the route?

[BCALBOY]

Must be a bug with the app , I'm using a desktop to access BA.COM ,
and LGW/LAS is currently bookable thru w15/16 op on days 2/4/6.

In S16 it is bookable on days 1/3/6 .Apr prices are in most cases cheaper then the LHR/LAS service , and MAY dates are def bookable.

[rutankrd]

Is there a chance BA might take on Norwegian on some of the routes it serves from LGW particularly JFK? Norwegian seem to be having some success with the route, going daily so could BA have another go at the route?

Simple - No they won't waste a JFK slot for a lower yielding Gatwick service through Newark might work imo..A further consideration being the way over capacity in the back of the boeings out of LHR needs a filling - They compete and dump those steerage seats through their primary hub and spoke centre very effectively already !

[Skipness One Echo]

I'm booked on BA2277/6 LGW-LAS-LGW in April. Just checked, flights showing on Ba.com web but at horrific prices, I paid nothing like what's showing, so either some background data changes going on or I've done the deal of the century with BA by booking so early!
No longer bookable on desktop site either.
Route not available
If prices went skyrocketing up, that's often a prelude for removal. Looks like they're juggling capacity to launch the new routes.

[vectisman]

As I have just mentioned elsewhere it is still on BA.Com and available for booking. Maybe, as mentioned, schedules are being re-arranged.


V

[CabinCrewe]

No longer bookable on desktop site either.

If prices went skyrocketing up, that's often a prelude for removal. Looks like they're juggling capacity to launch the new routes.
Flights next year are dirt cheap, £295 single in Aug 16 ex LGW

[adfly]

There is some talk on FT and A.net of CX considering a return to LGW and asking customers what they think about each of the main London airports (with a particular focus on LGW).

Will be interesting to see if anything comes from this, a daily 77W/A350 could be a good supplement to the 5 LHR flights. It would also be a good point to point option as well as providing some new connection opportunities via BA's network for HKG based passengers.

[wallp]

CX back at LGW would be amazing. If Emirates can make a big success off LGW and clearly they do, then maybe there are lessons for others. There's masses of demand for HKG so maybe they could make an LGW service work alongside their LHR ops

[True Blue]

Las not bookable at the minute for next summer from Lgw.

TB

[BCALBOY]

If you choose a date when Lgwlas does not operate , you get the rather misleading response "BA does not operate Lgw/Las " eg.03may

If you choose a date when Lgw/Las does operate , you are offered a choice of LHR or LGW eg.04May

Lgw prices are generally lower than LHR , so nothing to indicate inventory is being restricted.

[True Blue]

Yes Las is on sale. I love the way the BA site takes you to Lhr at every opportunity, whether you want that or not. Not much difference in price on the dates I looked at in economy, both sections, but business more expensive from Lhr. So if you are starting in London, why would you pay more to fly from Lhr as opposed to Lgw. The difference is about £500.


TB

[VickersVicount]

we're not still on about this, LAS ex LGW is NOT dropped. Who started that rumour.... ??!

[canberra97]

VikersViscount

If you look back through the recent posts on here your find Skipness One Echo initially started the 'rumour' of BA dropping LGW to LAS, any chance of having a dig ex long haul from Gatwick as normal.

[Skipness One Echo]

Who started that rumour.... ??!
Like you didn't read back one page?
Yes my bad, I was actually trying to book and the BA website told me "British Airways do not operate flights between London Gatwick and Las Vegas McCarran Intl".
It's a known bug and is being addressed.

To be clear, the rumour came from BA's own website explicitly saying they did not operate their own route.
It's not a football team, it's a business, stop being so tribal and learn how the market works, what you see as a "dig", a personal affront, is actually a quantifiable marketing reality. Calling someone's mum fat is a dig......

[True Blue]

Just been reading a link on the Man thread to a story on Cathy(CX). They are quoted in the article as saying that they could use the A350 to re-open the Lgw - HKG route.

With the arrival of the B787, the A350 plus much lower oil prices, does the economics of long haul out of Lgw have a different take now?i.e. much more positive

TB

[wallp]

If Emirates can make LGW work then why not Cathay with the A350? They could make Hong Kong a gateway for the Far East and beyond in a similar way that Emirates does through Dubai. With more efficient operating costs, the A350 could be the perfect plane for allowing Cathay (and maybe others) back. Perhaps the future of long haul at Gatwick looks brighter than before?

[canberra97]

Wallp

With regards to your comment regarding Long Haul from LGW, I am sure one consistent individual on here will shoot you down immediately regarding that comment but I am with you on that one.

Let's wait and see how long it takes him to have another negative dig at LGW.

[vectisman]

Canberra you need to focus on the topics being discussed and refrain from personal comments against other posters with whom you disagree. These forums are not the place for personal attacks. Thank you.

V

[wallp]

Hi canberra97, it seems Cathay Pacific have clearly identified Gatwick as a destination for their new A350 fleet so they obviously feel it can work with a modern, efficient aircraft type.

It seems entirely feasible that Hong Kong could become a successful destination from Gatwick and hopefully the A350 and 787 will create more long haul opportunities. Seems to be working ok for Norwegian so let's hope it's just the start

davidjohnson6, I can't remember where Westjet were planning to fly to from Gatwick? Could the Air Canada Rouge announcement have put them off?

[Skipness One Echo]

https://twitter.com/airlineroute/status/633523889499439104

Do we have any more than "potential new route survey"?
Did they do a survey? What were the results?

It's not so much that LGW will suddenly work on an A350, it's how LGW functions in relation to LHR. Look at Vietnam who are about to use B787-9s to London having gotten out of Gatwick before taking delivery. Emirates are not a good analogy for anyone, they're in a different league, so saying "LGW works for EK why won't it work for XYZ?" isn't a persuasive argument IMHO. Since LGW can't persuade QR to relaunch and given I would expect to see QR and EY in place before anyone old school like CX comes back, this seems unlikely. Remember CX are placed at the higher end / premium section of long haul. Can we honestly say this is a likely LGW airline, especially given their parent, Air China walked away from here as soon as they could get another LHR slot?

Kick me all you like for being negative and "anti-Gatwick" (even though about 1/3 of all my flying is from there), I just see the whole gig as being froth and marketing fluff. Revenue management would look at LGW as being lower yielding and lacking on site premium lounge facilities to compare to Cathay's own lounge at LHR. Hence the likely audience would be students and tourists in Economy, just as Air China and Korean Air found out. Now if someone said it was Dragonair......... (joke)

[True Blue]

Skipness

Re Vietnam Airlines, they have not seen a large increase in pax numbers since the move to Lhr, per CAA stats. So why would they suddenly have a very different type of pax using them because they are using Lhr as opposed to Lgw? I bet most of the pax on their flights live around Greater London, so could just as easily used Lgw as Lhr. What and where is the gain for Vietnam Airlines? Who are these passengers that would not use the airline that offered the only direct service to Vietnam, from Lgw, but would suddenly use it as it now goes from Lhr? A large increase in connection pax, but from where?

Secondly, I am sure CX are very well aware of the many weaknesses of Lgw. With that in mind, why are they even bothering considering Lgw? They have used Lgw before and no doubt, have access to all the commercial info that is crucial. Why do you think they are even bothering considering Lgw again?

TB

[cornishsimon]

I'm sure that if CX did come to LGW it would be from the south terminal and that the route would carry a BA codeshare and plenty of BA passengers.

Equally I suspect that CX would use whatever new loinge facilities BA end up with in the north to south move.


cs

[Skipness One Echo]

What and where is the gain for Vietnam Airlines? Who are these passengers that would not use the airline that offered the only direct service to Vietnam, from Lgw, but would suddenly use it as it now goes from Lhr? A large increase in connection pax, but from where?
You'd have to ask them, perhaps it made no difference, but you know what, they did it anyway. They are co-located with alliance partners at SkyTeam branded T4. Some airlines can't make LHR work anymore (Hi there Philippine Airlines) due to the ME3. However LHR allows Vietnam to charge more for the same number of people flying on that same one direct service for the premium of not using Gatwick. Yes, that's a real thing sadly. It's all about yield, they may or may not be adding revenue but the main point is they moved out as soon as they could. If you were right and London traffic didn't care between LHR and LGW that would be reflected in traffic patterns. Someone would make a killing at Gatwick. If we're being honest, that never happens.

They have used Lgw before and no doubt, have access to all the commercial info that is crucial. Why do you think they are even bothering considering Lgw again?
Not for a quarter of a century remember. #gettingold

Also, as I posted above, it says "potential survey". I am curious
1) Did they survey?
2) What were the results?

If the A350 can change the game then bring it on, however it's the same generation as the B787 and only loco Norwegian and good old Thomson is using them to LGW. Vietnam could have stayed at LGW and introduced the B789 from there remember. I wish you were right btw, I rather do.

[adfly]

Interesting interview with Bjorn Kjos here: Big Interview: Norwegian sets out strategy to make low-cost long-haul work - www.travelweekly.co.uk (http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/Articles/2015/09/03/56469/big+interview+norwegian+sets+out+strategy+to+make+low-cost+long-haul+work.html)

Interestingly it mentions halfway down the page that 2 more 787's will be based at Gatwick next year, and also that New York could potentially go double daily at some point.

Factoring in the 4 weekly flights to Boston there is still up to 10 weekly flights potentially unaccounted for.

[wallp]

interesting that the article very much talks of long haul feeding short haul and vice versa so something of a Norwegian hub looks to be developing at Gatwick which is fantastic.

Let's hope they continue to thrive and grow. It will be interesting to see where they go next with long-haul - perhaps looking to the Far East?

[LadyL2013]

I reckon they'll go for the long haul holiday markets more such as Male and Mauritius, more Thailand options as these are only served 1x weekly during season if I'm correct currently by BA and Thomson.

[LN-KGL]

Adfly, you are thinking too traditional with saying there 10 flights left. Below is the working week of the one 787 based at LGW from May 2016, with the first flight Monday afternoon.

LGW-BOS-OSL-BOS-LGW-BOS-CPH-BOS-LGW-BOS-OSL-BOS-LGW-BOS-LGW

This gives 4 weekly LGW-BOS, 2 weekly OSL-BOS and 1 weekly CPH-BOS. The same aircraft may not be used the full week; swaps may well be done at OSL, CPH or LGW since other 787s will be on the ground at the same time at these airports. Looking at crew scheduling; LGW based crews may well end up flying LGW-BOS-CPH-JFK-LGW.

Now to new destinations. As long as US *** don't give a lisence to NAI (the Irish subsidiary of Norwegian), 787s need to continue fly on the Norwegian AOC NLH. And since Norway is not part of that many open skies agreements - only one and that is the EU-US - we will only see new US destinations from LGW for now. Sadly the American airlines don't understand an approval of NAI will lead to less competition on flights between Europe and USA. For an US approved NAI other parts of the world will open up - other parts with open skies agreements with EU or even bilaterals with single EU countries can be possible.

Why does Norwegian 787s only fly from the three Scandinavian capitals to BKK and not from LGW? Most traffic agreements with Thailand are bilateral. Historically the three Scandinavian countries was seen as one part in a bilateral agreement due to SAS, and that's why the Norwegian registered NLH can fly to BKK from ARN, CPH and OSL.

Today's US3 - ME3 "war" and some European legacy carriers' (read Lufthansa Group) dissatisfaction with unfair competion from ME3, we may well end up with only strict bilaterals in the future. This will destroy the environment for the ME3, but also the environment for carriers like Norwegian. What this will lead to at LGW I don't know, but up the road and to the left there is an airport that rely heavily on open skies.

[Flightrider]

Sadly the American airlines don't understand an approval of NAI will lead to less competition on flights between Europe and USA. For an US approved NAI other parts of the world will open up - other parts with open skies agreements with EU or even bilaterals with single EU countries can be possible.

If that's the argument that is being used to try to secure regulatory approval for NAI, good luck with it. I don't think anyone would be fooled for one moment into believing that giving NAI approval will result in anything other than another load of aircraft being added to the huge order book already backed up in Norwegian as it continues on its trail. I thought some time ago that we hadn't seen anything like this before - multiple AOCs, long-haul and short-haul, pan-European domination plans and huge aircraft orders - but then I remembered Air Europe.

[Skipness One Echo]

This chap seems a little different. There have major problems in starting up and they have few friends in the necessary places. He's talking about a major shift in his own business model as well as minimising the real regulatory issues.

[LN-KGL]

Who are referring to in your last reply Skipness One Echo?

[adfly]

I assume Skipness was referring to Bjorn Kjos and comparing him to the likes of Freddie Laker.

LN-KGL - My use of the word 'potentially' was suggesting that the situation you have shown could affect that number. Of course there are further complications when you consider that an OSL/ARN/CPH based will most likely operate some of the LGW rotations. I guess we will have to wait and see.

Interesting comments about the bilateral's, I assume that means LGW-BKK is off the cards for now? As I have mentioned before I would think the most likely other new routes would be something like 3 weekly to BWI and OAK and possibly some frequency increases to some of the existing routes on top of this. All speculation, of course.

[LN-KGL]

We may well see a long short combination for the second LGW based 787 to the two airports you mention adfly, but for Mr. Kjos the use of the belly space is getting more and more important. This is why OSL did get 2 weekly flights to BOS and CPH only one - we are talking about freight of fresh farmed Norwegian salmon to the New England market. This is also why OSL will get 4 weekly SAS flights to MIA from autumn 2016 and CPH will only get 3 weekly.

Clearly it is not only the passenger basis that determines where new capacity will be inserted; well-paid cargo too will play a vital role in the future.

[BAladdy]

BA are dropping there 3 x weekly LCA service from 6th November

[adfly]

Indeed, I suppose it is easy to forget the difference cargo can make on long haul flights. Do you have any idea of Norwegian's plans for the other two 789's due next year, are both going to new bases (ORY/MAD/BCN have been mentioned), being used to expand the Nordic bases or a combination of the two? Sorry for the slight drift off topic!

[LN-KGL]

I haven't got a clue, Norwegian usually don't show their cards. But I can guess. I see no new European airports in 2016, but with the five inbound 789s in 2017 some may end up on the Iberian Peninsula.

[tubby linton]

Norwegian are using a 737 on the JFK tonight via KEF.

[eggc]

Ouch, miles from a 787 that is on various fronts ! Personally I'd be furious.

[wallp]

Must be a very small load if a 738 can serve the route tonight

[Wycombe]

Or some people were paid to stay behind?...we don't know.

Going take a while to get the a/c back aswell, unless this was planned in advance and a crew have been positioned to bring it straight home.

[cornishsimon]

Read elsewhere that the return was cancelled and that the aircraft will position back after the flight crew have had minimum rest.


cs

[adfly]

Not wishing to give in to the incoming competition Air Transat have announced an expanded schedule from LGW next year;

Toronto will operate 11 weekly (10 in S15)
Vancouver will operate daily (6 weekly S15)
Montreal will operate 3 weekly (2 weekly S15)

Also a mention of 'higher capacity aircraft' being used for Toronto, presumably meaning a greater use of the A330-300's that have recently been converted to 9 abreast allowing for an extra 30 seats or so.

Glasgow to gain Montréal service next summer - www.travelweekly.co.uk (http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/Articles/2015/09/08/56524/glasgow+to+gain+montral+service+next+summer.html)

[wallp]

With Air Canada Rouge starting up at Gatwixk, there will be a plethora of flight options to Canada next year which is good to see. It's a long haul market which seems to do very well from Gatwick.

[Seljuk22]

EZY routes to DME, BRU, CGN, DUS are not bookable beyond 21st March.

[strawberry Ribena]

Not surprised about dme. But the other routes? Wow.

[Aero Mad]

Pure speculation but the fact that both CGN and DUS remain unbookable beyond 21/03 at the moment would suggest that (given their overlapping catchment and lack of competition) there are possibly more schedules to be released. Given they have recently canned it from MAN, the loss of DME would be less surprising (yields have always seemed pretty poor from the website).

[davidjohnson6]

If Easyjet are dropping Moscow the space for a UK-based airline will reopen. Wonder if Virgin will make any noise this time round...

Regarding BRU - SN have dropped their advance booking fares to presumably counter their rival.

As to CGN - after Eurowings and Ryanair, is there room for a 3rd LCC ?

[The Flying Cokeman]

DME route has been confirmed by EZY CEO to be dropped due to the problems with Russia (Ukraine) at the moment. If things gets better/more stable over there it could be restarted again she said.

[LadyL2013]

I was last at Gatwick at the end of May and building of the new gates at the North terminal was completely blocking the view of the airport you used to get from the departure lounge. Is this still the case?

[daz211]

Taken from Twitter ...

WestJet on Sunday night (13SEP15, Mountain Daylight Time) has loaded planned London Gatwick operation for summer 2016 season, ahead of forthcoming announcement, expected to be made as early as Monday morning (14SEP15).

The Canadian low-cost carrier plans to operate service from Calgary, Edmonton, St. John’s (Newfoundland), Toronto, Vancouver and Winnipeg. Reservation for these Boeing 767-300ER operating routes (St. John’s operated by 737-700) will be available once the airline makes the announcement. At time this post goes to press, the following are WestJet’s planned London Gatwick operation, based on schedule listed in FLIFO (Flight Information) as well as seat map.

eff 06MAY16 Calgary – London Gatwick 5 weekly
WS001 YYC1855 – 1049+1LGW 76W x16
WS002 LGW1055 – 1355YYC 76W x16 (eff 08MAY16)

eff 06MAY16 Toronto – London Gatwick 1 daily
WS003 YYZ2105 – 0925+1LGW 76W D
WS004 LGW1315 – 1628YYZ 76W D

eff 06MAY16 Vancouver – London Gatwick 6 weekly
WS022 YVR1750 – 1124+1LGW 76W x6
WS023 LGW1255 – 1540YVR 76W x6 (eff 08MAY16)

eff 07MAY16 Edmonton – London Gatwick 2 weekly
WS026 YEG1905 – 1044+1LGW 76W 16
WS027 LGW1055 – 1338YEG 76W 16

eff 07MAY16 St. John’s NFLD – London Gatwick 1 daily
WS024 YYT2335 – 0800+1LGW 73W D
WS025 LGW0920 – 1137YYT 73W D

eff 07MAY16 Winnipeg – London Gatwick 1 weekly
WS028 YWG2100 – 1102+1LGW 76W 6
WS029 LGW1250 – 1551YWG 76W 6

[BAladdy]

I don't know why but I wasn't expecting Westjet to add flights to as many destinations from LGW as they have.

[daz211]

Posted at 0700GMT 14SEP15

British Airways is expanding network coverage in Canada in winter 2015/16 season, as it expands codeshare partnership with Canadian carrier WestJet. From 25OCT15, BA code will being to appear on following WestJet service:

Calgary – Regina
Calgary – Saskatoon
Toronto – Edmonton
Toronto – Kelowna
Toronto – Quebec City
Toronto – Regina
Toronto – Saskatoon
Vancouver – Kelowna
Vancouver – Victoria

[daz211]

I hear Westjet will officially announce the New London Gatwick routes tomorrow the 15th September :ok:

[HH6702]

WestJet to Launch London Gatwick Service from May 2016 | Airline Route (http://airlineroute.net/2015/09/14/ws-lgw-s16/)

That's the link 4 new routes
2x 767 per day and a daily 737

[daz211]

I make that 6 new routes not 4 :bored:

Calgary
Toronto
Vancouver
Edmonton
Winnipeg
St Johns

[Itchin McCrevis]

I wonder if they will get all the slots they need for this, I guess they will get new entrant rights on any new slots on offer.

[wallp]

Wow, Canada really is big business at Gatwick now with Air Transat, Air Canada Rouge and Westjet and a whole raft of routes. Great stuff.

I wonder what it is about the Canadian market that makes all this possible and if there are lessons for elsewhere?

[daz211]

Bookings are now live on Westjet.com for flights from London Gatwick :ok:

[PAXboy]

I've not read it and as I don't connect through LGW - I probably won't!

Gatwick unveils flight connection guarantee to eliminate financial risk of 'self-connecting' - News & Advice - Travel - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/gatwick-unveils-flight-connection-guarantee-to-eliminate-financial-risk-of-selfconnecting-10500670.html)

[adfly]

That is an interesting idea, will be interesting to see how it pans out, although it is good to see some innovation with regard to making LGW more of a 'hub' airport.

[Fairdealfrank]

I've not read it and as I don't connect through LGW - I probably won't!

Also don't connect through LGW (it's the start or end of a journey), but have read it. It's mainly an insurance scheme run by the airport, an innovative idea......

[TartinTon]

Hardly an innovative idea....Milan have been doing it for a few years now

http://www.flyviamilano.eu/en/how-it-works

[True Blue]

I assume Westjet is only using Lgw as a waiting room until it can find peak time slots at Lhr when it can then make a speedy move across!

[kcockayne]

I realize that you are being sarcastic here but, the fact is that many "High Profile" airlines did precisely what you deride ie. use Gatwick as a waiting room for Heathrow. AAL, DAL, USA, CCA, CPA, ANZ, Air Vietnam Nam to name just a few. It doesn't detract from the attraction of Gatwick, it simply illustrates that to many of these sorts of airlines Heathrow is more attractive. But, it also does not mean that Gatwick is unattractive to many other airlines. West Jet is one of these & I wish them well with their services, especially as it means greater connectivity for me from the only really useable London airport with a good service to Jersey.
I think you would begin to understand the reality of the Heathrow/Gatwick relationship if you could accept the fact that Heathrow, for whatever reasons (& maybe, irrational ones at times) is more attractive to the sorts of airlines which have abandoned Gatwick for it.

[True Blue]

I can understand quite well the attractions of Lhr. Lhr has almost monopoly power now for the reasons you state, airlines want to move there. In the process, keep Lgw from becoming a competitor and in turn, you are able to push up prices due supply and demand. He presto, everyone wins except the paying passenger, that is you and me. So it is in the interests of most of the travel industry to convince us that Lhr is the best option for everything and with that happening, make Lhr even more appealing for airlines. It is revealing that the recent report states that Lhr will only provide 2/3 new destinations more than an expanded Lgw could provide. Yet the tone of that report is that Lhr is far and away the best option. For who? Because as I see it, support for an expanded Lhr means higher fares for all of us who have to use it. That is the way the providers have it now and want it to stay.

TB

[kcockayne]

I am willing to accept that there is something in what you say about the airlines & their charges, & the associated reasons for them wanting Heathrow to be further developed & to be the recipient of the new runway.
However, I take Boris Johnson's latest claims about the reduction in domestic routes & failure to increase international routes from Heathrow with a very great pinch of salt.
Until it happens, there can be absolutely no certainty about what happens at Heathrow consequent upon it receiving the new runway. For BJ to make these claims is nothing short of clutching at straws & saying anything to desperately try & achieve his aims.
However, I don't mean to include you in this , as I do agree that you have a creditable argument in what you have said in reply to my last post. Time will tell.

[Skipness One Echo]

I would say Westjet is a Gatwick keeper as is Air Canada Rouge. Transat tried LHR for a few years but settled back on LGW. P2P leisure with little premium frills is a market LGW excels at.
There's no upside in chasing higher yield at LHR when you're aiming almost exclusively and squarely at the price conscious market.

Why do you say LGW is not allowed to compete with LHR? It's been a competitor since day one, it just cannot possibly succeed in certain markets with LHR so close and with a critical mass of legacy / protected connections and alliance partners. LHR doesn't mind if LGW gets a second runway, LGW does violently object to LHR getting another runway as the market for many routes will simply not be at LGW if that restriction is lifted.

[davidjohnson6]

Could well be wrong but I thought Westjet announced recently they want to move away from the bargain basement crowd and aim more at passengers who will pay more for a more comfortable environment. Maybe not ready for LHR yet but heading in that direction long term...

[goldeneye]

I suspect with U2 looking at interline options, they may be a good fit to feed from and into Westjets Canadian flights.

[globetrotter79]

Or since BA codeshare with WestJet for onward domestic connections within Canada, might WestJet end up codesharing with BA for onwards domestic/European connections from LGW?

[Dropline]

Add Content

[Fairdealfrank]

LHR doesn't mind if LGW gets a second runway, LGW does violently object to LHR getting another runway as the market for many routes will simply not be at LGW if that restriction is lifted.


Says it all doesn't it. Suppose, in a wild fantasy, that both airports were permitted to build an extra rwy.

Clearly Heathrow management would be in there from day 1 irrespective of what happens at Gatwick, but not convinced that the reverse is also the case.

Perhaps indicative of which option is really the stronger business case and therefore viable.

Gatwick management is currently spending a hell of a lot of dosh on regular 4-page spreads in the London Evening Standard rubbishing Heathrow.....

[DaveReidUK]

LHR doesn't mind if LGW gets a second runway

I seem to recall comments in Heathrow's submission to the Airport Commission that imply the opposite.

[Skipness One Echo]

I think the context is in terms of LGW getting the one runway at the expense of LHR. If we get an additional runway at LHR and LGW, it's little skin off LHR's nose.

[Charley B]

In my view,one extra runway at both is the best option..LGW are stretched capacity wise now and LHR desperately needs one...hope they see sense and do this :)

[yotty]

Charlie, why waste all that money building 2 new runways when one new runway at LHR will achieve both satisfying demand in Middlesex and reducing the stretch at Gatwick?

[Charley B]

Wasn't it said that by the time that the runway is actually built at LHR it will be at full capacity again , so the one at LGW will be needed as well..probably neither will get one if certain MPs get their way which will be a shame.

[BAladdy]

BA have made a number of changes to there planned S16 LGW Shorthaul Schedule. Details below:

Frequency Increases for Entire S16 Season:

Faro - Will increase from 15 to 16 x weekly
Heraklion - Will increase from 4 to 6 x weekly
Naples - Will increase from 17 to 18 x weekly
Pisa - Will increase from 7 to 9 x weekly
Seville - Will increase from 5 to 6 x weekly
Tenerife - Will increase from 5 to 6 x weekly
Turin - Will increase from 6 to 8 x weekly
Thessaloniki - Will increase from 4 to 5 x weekly
Venice - Will increase from 22 to 27 x weekly

Frequency Increases from Part S16 Season

Arrecife - 02APR-16APR & 17SEP-29OCT will increase from 2 to 3 x weekly
Bodrum - 13JUL-07SEP will increase from 2 to 3 x weekly
Cagliari - 10JUL-11SEP will increase from 3 to 5 x weekly
Faro - 11JUL-12SEP will increase from 16 to 17 x weekly
Naples - 15JUL-09SEP will increase from 18 to 19 x weekly
Salzburg - 13JUL-07SEP will increase from 6 to 7 x weekly
Tirana - 14JUL-09SEP will increase from 6 to 7 x weekly


Further changes are likely before the start of the S16 schedule

[vectisman]

I was really hoping BA would increase frequency to Paphos during the summer months. Both cabins are always heavily booked on the 5 weekly frequency. Already fares are high for a year in advance. I am beginning to look at alternative carriers even though the BA flight combined with car hire is my preferred option.


V.

[CabinCrewe]

Nice to see ongoing expansion, though looking back over the years they are certainly 'leisure' orientated now.

[wallp]

Nice to see ongoing expansion, though looking back over the years they are certainly 'leisure' orientated now.

It's good to see that BA have carved out their niche at Gatwick and clearly it's working for them hence the expansion of routes described. Yes, it's more leisure oriented but there's no point in (with a few exceptions) duplicating LHR services.

A LGW with a growing BA operation of any sort is better than a LGW without BA. Hopefully they'll continue to evolve more leisure routes, both short and long haul. With their upcoming move to South Terminal, their ops should fit in there nicely

[wallp]

I flew from LGW Sourh Terminal today with EZY and I must credit the airport on one of the smoothest departure journeys I can recall, very fast and efficient. Security was a breeze, departure was smooth and efficiently. Big thumbs up to Gatwick 👍

[LadyL2013]

My journeys through LGW havd been smooth as silk for years. That's why STN was such a unpleasant shock last year.

[True Blue]

I have been through North terminal twice in the past 2 weeks, no issue at all. I think Lgw is now quite a good experience although, in keeping with all UK airports, a few more cleaners would be a good idea.

TB

[racedo]

I have been through North terminal twice in the past 2 weeks, no issue at all. I think Lgw is now quite a good experience although, in keeping with all UK airports, a few more cleaners would be a good idea.

TB

Gatwick airport now looks like an airport rather than a cheap railway station however its Railway station is shocking, crap ticket areas that are continually overcrowded with not enough working machines and platforms which are shocking.

[intortola]

Gatwick has definitely improved in recent years. Did flights from both north and south terminal when I was in UK in August. On leaving north terminal fast track security was very quick, think I was in the BA lounge only about 5 minutes after leaving check in.

[davidjohnson6]

racedo - to be fair, there are a lot of ticket machines at Gatwick's train station. Sometimes the queue is non-existent but at other times when the queue is non-trivial there are usually two people acting as queue marshals.

I've seen staff selling train tickets at North terminal while people wait for the shuttle to south terminal - good idea but they seemed slow and relatively ineffective - staff are maybe better deployed at ticket windows in the station where collecting payment and issuing tickets is faster than using a handheld machine. Perhaps some train ticket machines could also be installed at North terminal in the waiting area for the shuttle ?

A big help might be making train travel between London and Gatwick possible via Oyster, as well as the sale and topup of normal Oyster cards (not just the funny Visitor Oyster cards with an extra fee) possible at Gatwick. That will probably require the Dept of Transport to force things through against the will of Southern - the airport would probably be limited to lobbying in this regard.

Regarding the platforms, they can be a bit grim, particularly at night. Improving them will likely cost a lot of money - it seems impossible to do anything that comes close to railway track in the UK without having a near bottomless pit of money. Who should pay for these works ?

Do you have any ideas as to how the train station could be improved given existing space constraints and within a modest monetary budget ?

[True Blue]

Has Lgw not announced a major up-grade of the train station over the next 2 years?

TB

[FlyboyUK]

Yes it has

Gatwick Media Centre ? Transformation of Gatwick rail station secured (http://www.mediacentre.gatwickairport.com/press-releases/2015/transformation-of-gatwick-rail-station-secured.aspx)

:ok:

[ELondonPax]

The ticket buying chaos at the railway station is compounded by the absurdly complicated fare structure for fares to London.
Oyster sounds like a step forward but....
(1) While it has revolutionised travel in London, the oyster technology is near the limit of what it can do. There are only so many price buckets it can cope with and its now close to that limit. Note that tfl aren't pushing development of oyster now, they're pushing contactless bank cards, and already 20% of London journeys are now on contactless bank card.
(2) Although there is now only one train company operating ALL trains between Gatwick and London (legal name GoVia Thameslink Railway Ltd) it is persisting with separate brands (Thameslink Southern Express), and persisting with separate price points for the different brands. The legality of that is hotly disputed, but put that aside. In terms of oyster, oyster can only have a single fare for a straightforward "point A to point B" journey, so oyster can't be introduced until this ticket chaos is sorted out.

[PAXboy]

From the PR splurb:
... with work scheduled to start in 2017 and complete in 2020.Only another five years of problems then. :ok:

[FlyboyUK]

Southern have a contactless card system, it's currently fairly basic as you can only put your season ticket on it and pay for singles on a touch-in, touch-out basis. They say plan is to go to completely ticketless eventually with Oyster integration. Probably still many years away.

[wallp]

I've flown to/from Gatwick in the past week with easyJet and I must give credit where its due - the whole airport experience was excellent. Travelling from Gatwick, parking and getting to South Terminal was easy, check in was a breeze as was security and coming back today, passport control was quick and bags were delivered within about 15 minutes. From the point of landing to leaving the car park to come home was around 45 minutes. Very efficient and a very pleasant experience.

[True Blue]

The message from Norwegian seems to be that Lgw will be a focus for large expansion. Are we due an announcement from Norwegian with bigger expansion plans than the odd route here and there on 3//4 days a week?

TB

[True Blue]

I see on Wiki, Lufthansa is showing as operating to Munich. I know Wiki can be very unreliable, any views if this could happen?

TB

[Bournemouth Air]

Gatwick North Carparking caos.

What has happened at the new car park 2 on the North terminal. I had to queue for at least 20 mins from the motorway to get into the car park. When you reach the car park staff direct you into the old car park then there's no parking on bottom levels

[willy wombat]

I believe there is a structural problem with the new car park 2 at LGW North which means it cannot be used except for the bottom level which is used for, I think, valet parking. This from the people who think they could successfully build a second runway and associated terminal, infrastructure, etc.

[davidjohnson6]

Discover the World, a UK-based travel agency specialising in Iceland are chartering an aircraft (no idea which airline - sorry) to fly 2x weekly between Gatwick and Egilsstadir in Iceland from 28 May 2016 to 24 Sep 2016

https://www.discover-the-world.co.uk/blog/new-direct-flight-to-east-iceland-exclusive-to-discover-the-world

[LTNman]

I see ground handler Swissport is pulling out of Gatwick next month. I seem to remember that they had some issues last year at Gatwick.

[canberra97]

Does anyone have any information regarding the new pier 1 and when it is due to be completed and ready for opening?

[True Blue]

Well, well, well, BA resuming Lgw - Jfk daily from 1st may 2016. Losing lots of money and all that!


TB

[adfly]

They clearly don't appreciate the mark Norwegian has started to leave on their lawn! Lets hope JFK works for both of them.

[Skipness One Echo]

Well, well, well, BA resuming Lgw - Jfk daily from 1st may 2016. Losing lots of money and all that!
Fourth time lucky? (third?)
Lowest yielding of multiple LON-NYC flights /= "money losing". Steady now.
Let's hope it's not an attempt to do to Norwegian at Gatters what American did to EOS and Maxjet at Stansted.

Won't be offering First which makes it unique across the wide body offering into NYC from BA and AA from LON. BA were adamant that this route would NEVER return no more than 18 months ago. What's changed? Norwegian.....

[Logohu]

Let's hope it's not an attempt to do to Norwegian at Gatters what American did to EOS and Maxjet at Stansted.

I'm sure BA's intentions are entirely honourable (:rolleyes:), and that all the beancounters at Waterworld simply had their spreadsheets upside down during the last three attempts and missed a profitable opportunity.

[True Blue]

Or maybe is didn't lose as much money as we were told, they just preferred to force us through higher fares Lhr where they could make more money than at Lgw. Big difference between loosing money and being able to make even more!


TB

[PAXboy]

The list of who-did-what-to-whom-and-where is very long. Amongst others were LH at STN against all the LCCs in the late 1990s, which was one of the few at which they failed.

[True Blue]

I read elsewhere that BA are dropping Las Vegas from Lgw mid April 2016.


TB

[Skipness One Echo]

I'm sure BA's intentions are entirely honourable (), and that all the beancounters at Waterworld simply had their spreadsheets upside down during the last three attempts and missed a profitable opportunity.
Analysts don't count beans anymore than doctor study chicken entrails. The key issue is that BA have x number of B777s to operate in y markets. Adding an additional LGW-JFK rotation may not be the best use of that most mobile of assets as BA saturate LON-NYC out of LHR and even LCY. So what's changed? I would venture that a strategic decision has been taken to over-ride BAU decision making and put some pressure on Norwegian. BA allowed easyJet to take over LGW short haul, the strategic risk is that with two B788s based, they pose a risk to profit levels on exisiting BA long haul.
Or maybe is didn't lose as much money as we were told, they just preferred to force us through higher fares Lhr where they could make more money than at Lgw.
Y fares on LHR-JFK are not that pricey given the sily amount of seats they have to fill each day. I believe LGW-JFK did make money, did well for BCAL on the DC10 and later BA as well.

[True Blue]

I think I am correct that Norwegian carried 200,000 pax between USA and Lgw in the first year. That is a serious loss of revenue to the big 3 across the pond, which will get worse as more services are started direct with smaller aircraft.


TB

[LadyL2013]

It's always interesting to see how other airlines jump once one airline takes the risk. I can think of countless examples Norwegian with the US city routes and now BA. Thomson with Costa Rica and now BA. I wouldn't be surprised if Virgin jump on both those wagons.

[EI-BUD]

Well done True Blue re your prediction some time back that BA would join the fray on LGW JFK... well at least I think it was you if memory serves me well! You were right after all


EI-BUD

[daz211]

Has anyone got any info regarding a date or at least an announcement
Regarding Rouges plans for LGW ?

[LGWAlan]

Bookable in Amadeus daily 20/5/16 to 27/9/16
AC1925 LGWYYZ 1200-1500
AC1924 YYZLGW 2210-1015

[Need to Know Basis]

By this time 2016 Norwegian will be double daily with the B787 and once the 787-900`s come it will be put on JFK.

Thomson Costa Rica ? DY starts San Juan 4th Nov.

By 2016/17 going into 2017......my prediction is 3 x B787 + 2 x B787-900 will be the LGW base. Minimum. Not including the B738.......no prediction on shorthaul.

[wallp]

Interesting that BA are dropping Las Vegas from Gatwick. Felt like a route that could work well there particularly since Virgin is successful. Seems consolidating the route from Heathrow is their preferred option.

Great news that JFK is returning to Gatwick with BA. Presumably the success of Norwegian has made them act to try to woo back some passengers who've been lost to them. It'll be interesting to see how that battle pans out. I wonder if BA will look at encroaching on any of Norwegian's other routes that they don't already serve from Gatwick?

BA long haul certainly seems to be pretty healthy with New York, Lima & Costa Rica joining the well established routes. Maybe more will follow?

[cornishsimon]

I suspect more BA longhaul will be added to the LGW base as and when airframes are freed up from LHR.

Perhaps LAS wouldn't of been dropped if the 772 hadn't been damaged/written off recently as the 772 fleet seems rather stretched without it.


cs

[wallp]

I wonder also if the upcoming BA move to South Terminal will open up more scope to add in more flights both long & short haul?

[canberra97]

Need to know basis

San Juan is in Puerto Rico not Costa Rica, San Jose is the capital of Costa Rica.

DY to San Juan, Puerto Rico.

BA and THOMSON to San Jose, Costa Rica along with THOMSON to Liberia, Costa Rica.

[vctenderness]

I thought the BA San Jose was the one in California not Costa Rica.

[Wycombe]

Yes it is ...the Silicon Valley Flyer I would call it!

[canberra97]

Vctenderness

BA commence LGW to San Jose the capital of Costa Rica on 04/05/2016.

BA commence LHR to San Jose, USA on 01/05/2016.

I think some people need to learn their geography.

Also people are getting a bit confused with San Juan in Puerto Rico where DY are commencing flights from LGW on 04/11/2015 with San Jose in Costa Rica, two different capital cities in two different countries.

[vctenderness]

My brain hurts:}

[Skipness One Echo]

I suspect more BA longhaul will be added to the LGW base as and when airframes are freed up from LHR.

Airframes are not being "freed up", they're being scrapped sadly! It's a misunderstanding that space constraints have stopped BA serving destinations out of LGW, they used to dominate LGW N remember. cornishsimon might have a point though, if some of the LHR BA 772 fleet is moved to LGW, it would be BAU hand me downs yet again for by now, the first to go are over two decades old!
Perhaps the future is actually Norwegian

Genuine question :
If in 2-3 years time, DU have a based fleet of 5+ B787s up against Virgin and BA, does anyone see
1) Delta getting VS out of that market as the ROI on a B744 replacement against Norwegian isn't compelling
2) Norwegian could do to BA long haul what easyJet did to shorthaul

Might Norwegian actually be much better for LGW than either BA or VS?
If they survive the next 2 years and keep the profits coming, they could be in a very powerful position to decimate both competitors on cost alone, as well as a much more modern and fuel efficient product.

Thoughts?

[rutankrd]

Skip and others

1. IMO the BA JFK operation is simply slot sitting (on the eastern seaboard) and will go away/ return to Slough Windsor and Hounslow regional when they get the opportunity to use a slot pair north of the river.

Am I right to say BA have returned a JFK rotation to AA (who are repurposing a US slot pair) north of the river so there is little if any gain in actual capacity.

Its also a usual BA tactic to nullify a certain perceived and potential risk!

2. I've said before I believe DL could very well look to recovering value by selling VS Holidays at some point leading to the closure of VS leisure fleet. To date they seem somewhat reticent about committing to fleet renewal.

3. Norwegian LH are a real potential risk to all the traditional legacies if they get through the next few years - Could we even see them merging with Thomas Cook - That would become a true second force from the UK and especially for cost driven leisure travellers -those not travelling enough to work the bribery systems of the legacies.

[cornishsimon]

Personally I think that BA will look to add an additional 5 longhaul and 10-20 shorthaul frames to the LGW fleet over the next 5 years, these will no doubt be either hand me downs from mothership Heathrow or 2nd hand purchases, however I think that they will start to take the game to DY & U2.


Personal thoughts not based on fact, but hey we will see.




cs

[bunatern]

Does anybody know anything about med view airlines nigeria according to last acl W15 report they hold slots for 3 weekly lagos there website has gatwick on its pull down for booking and when dummie booking has flight times and flight code.

[rutankrd]

Nigerian virtual carrier doing domestic charters with a few elderly 737s as well as being an annual Hajj specialist broker employing the services of likes of Euro Atlantic.

Been around for some years however if they are about to jump on the scheduled long haul band waggon likely bankrupted in short order - Wouldn't put my faith or hard cash their way any time soon.

[LadyL2013]

Canberra, I thought TOM were only to Liberia, not San Jose.

The BA to San Jose, CR and San Jose, California will cause a hell of a lot of confusion, I think.

[canberra97]

I swear I read somewhere that Thomson were also adding San Jose, Costa Rica to the already announced flights to Liberia, Costa Rica but after searching online it appears that Thomson Holidays are indeed offering San Jose as a destination but using BA as their flight option so it does appear so that Thomson won't be operating their own flights to the capital of Costa Rica only to Liberia.

I did wonder at the time if it was a bit of an over kill for Thomson to have two destinations in Costa Rica.

On a personal note having been to Costa Rica myself I do recommend it as it is a beautiful country with so much to offer.

[LadyL2013]

We are currently in the process of organising our holiday there next year, hence why I was interested. BA coming out the MUCH cheaper option for flights, but annoyingly Liberia is more convenient for the trip we have planned.

[7griffinjack]

BA and THOMSON to San Jose, Costa Rica along with THOMSON to Liberia, Costa Rica.

Thomson are flying to San Jose, Costa Rica as well as Liberia, Costa Rica? I thought they were only flying to the latter with BA to the former.

[canberra97]

7griffinjack

See my post above 2897.

[7griffinjack]

ah, makes sense now!

[Fairdealfrank]

Canberra, I thought TOM were only to Liberia, not San Jose.

The BA to San Jose, CR and San Jose, California will cause a hell of a lot of confusion, I think.


Yes, definitely, especially as both start within days of each other.
Maybe it is one reason why SJO is to/from LGW and SJC is to/from LHR.

[Need to Know Basis]

Med-View Airlines starts 20NOV LOS-LGW-LOS x 4 per week B767-300ER ( currently being refurbished after the HAJJ season).

GHA LGW is Aviator

[True Blue]

Med View is on sale via their web site.


Can you expand on the Aviator comment please?


Thanks


TB

[canberra97]

Aviator should be read as Goldstar Airlines of Ghana with the tag line 'Wings of Ghana'.

They have wet leased a Boeing 767-300 from Euro Atlantic Airways in full Goldstar Airlines livery and intend operating from Accra to Baltimore and London Gatwick but are waiting approval to commence flights from the Ghanaian authorities after there recent audit.

There intention was start flights in December but no exact start date as yet.

With the introduction of Med View Airlines to Lagos and the proposed start up of Goldstar Airlines to Accra Gatwick seem to be adding new African routes to its portfolio plus the ambitious intentions of Air Zimbabwe of resuming flights in the near future to Harare as well as Rwandair stating they plan flights from Kigali once they receive there A330's.

If all goes as planned Gatwick will have quite a few options to Africa once again.

[LAX_LHR]

Also Aviator is the name of a ground handling agent (GHA).

[canberra97]

LAX_LHR

Your absolutely correct Aviator is the GHA as in Ground Handling Agent for Med View Airlines at Gatwick, my mistake I was getting it confused with Ghana when it was GHA.

Thanks for pointing out that schoolboy error to me☺️

[Flightrider]

I see Norwegian are selling LGW-SJU-LGW returns including all taxes at £250 return in November. That really is low cost. Perhaps even well below cost....

[intortola]

Interesting. I have seen no advertising for them here in the NE Caribbean, when I mention these flights to people they have no idea about them but are really interested. We are only 30 minutes flying time to SJU and this will allow us to avoid LIAT to Antigua or traveling via the USA. They need to get the word out there and am sure they will get a lot of business.

[True Blue]

Vueling to start Lgw - Cdg from May 16.

[wallp]

Vueling to start Lgw - Cdg from May 16.

Interesting and surprising choice of route from Vueling. Given EZY already serve what is a pretty saturated route in the South East it'll be interesting to see how they fair with this.

More interestingly how does this fit in to a wider plan for LGW operations?

[compton3bravo]

Would not surprise me they operate some of the BA flights to Charles de Gaulle freeing up the BA aircraft to operate another route.

[Wycombe]

Vueling to start Lgw - Cdg from May 16

Part of a IAG play to take on EZY in their backyard, one suspects.

[True Blue]

So Norwegian now has its UK licence. Any views on where the next new long haul routes will take them from Lgw?

TB

[wallp]

How about

Washington
Toronto
Bangkok
Hong Kong

[wallp]

Where's the evidence of them haemorrhaging money?

[True Blue]

RexBanner

They post their results on their web site.

TB

[EI-BUD]

Compton3bravo

BA have not flown from Gatwick to Paris for quite some time, so Vueling entry onto route does nothing to free up BA aircraft..

EI-BUD

[MKY661]

According to the MAN thread Iraqi Airways have ended their flights to MAN. I'm wondering if they will also pull the plug from here too?

[davidjohnson6]

Reports elsewhere of Gatwick-is-the-Heathrow-waiting-room syndrome occurring again.
Garuda is to decouple London and Amsterdam, and move London flights from Gatwick to Heathrow.

The option of using Garuda as a cheap (but rather obscure) way to travel between London and Amsterdam won't be around for much longer it seems.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

That'll hurt LGW's expansion argument surely.

Despite it having spare capacity now, the market (ie airlines) still prefer the constrained LHR. Did Davies got it right - expanding LHR is the best option?

[kcockayne]

I've been trying to give a one word answer, but the system won't let me. The answer is, "Yes, Davies did get it right". In my opinion &, apparently, Garuda's !

[StevieW]

Yep, losing a three times weekly service will definitely hurt their expansion argument, on the day they passed 40 million passengers per year for the first time :rolleyes:

[kcockayne]

Garuda are of no great importance in the overall scheme of things, but they are just the latest in a long line of airlines who have abandoned Gatwick for Heathrow. That long list is what demonstrates that the long haul , & the "prestigious name" airlines, much prefer Heathrow. The very fact that this has occurred over the last 40 years is it's own testament to the truth that Heathrow is where these airlines want to be. And, to that effect, Davies got it right.
No one is saying that Gatwick will not expand, or even that it will not attract long haul flights. It might even get another runway one day, if it can overcome the political opposition.
My own favourite IS Gatwick, because it, alone, has the connecting flights to the Channel Islands to go with a great expansion of long haul routes that a 2nd. Runway MIGHT bring. But, I don't kid myself that the big international airlines favour it over Heathrow.

[T250]

The option of using Garuda as a cheap (but rather obscure) way to travel between London and Amsterdam won't be around for much longer it seems.

Sorry, £75 one way LGW-AMS is 'cheap'? :hmm:

[Fairdealfrank]

Reports elsewhere of Gatwick-is-the-Heathrow-waiting-room syndrome occurring again.
Garuda is to decouple London and Amsterdam, and move London flights from Gatwick to Heathrow.

The option of using Garuda as a cheap (but rather obscure) way to travel between London and Amsterdam won't be around for much longer it seems. LGW always has been the "waiting room" for long haul, always will be (unless LHR is expanded).

GA will be able to take advantage of the available premium traffic and connecting pax at LHR, as VN (and many others) already do.






That'll hurt LGW's expansion argument surely.

Despite it having spare capacity now, the market (ie airlines) still prefer the constrained LHR. Did Davies got it right - expanding LHR is the best option?
I've been trying to give a one word answer, but the system won't let me. The answer is, "Yes, Davies did get it right". In my opinion &, apparently, Garuda's !
Indeed.





Garuda are of no great importance in the overall scheme of things, but they are just the latest in a long line of airlines who have abandoned Gatwick for Heathrow. That long list is what demonstrates that the long haul , & the "prestigious name" airlines, much prefer Heathrow. The very fact that this has occurred over the last 40 years is it's own testament to the truth that Heathrow is where these airlines want to be. And, to that effect, Davies got it right.
Yes, Davies got it right, as did the various predecessors (e.g. RUCATSE and all the others).




No one is saying that Gatwick will not expand, or even that it will not attract long haul flights. It might even get another runway one day, if it can overcome the political opposition.
My own favourite IS Gatwick, because it, alone, has the connecting flights to the Channel Islands to go with a great expansion of long haul routes that a 2nd. Runway MIGHT bring. But, I don't kid myself that the big international airlines favour it over Heathrow.
A third rwy at LHR is likely to see the return of LHR-JER among other routes.
There's nothing wrong with having a second rwy at LGW, provided it is not at the expense of a third at LHR.

[mrshubigbus]

So Gatwick has hit 40 million PAX! Wow - that was a "decade" sooner than was predicted by some. So where does it go next? ATC at LGW are "the very best" in the world. To have the busiest single runway operation in the world by some margin is testimony to the skill and excellence of the Swanwick and LGW teams, however having spent the summer flying in and out of the airport it is now very clear that it is operating right at the limit of a "safe" operation! "Line up after the landing aircraft and be ready for an immediate", "After landing minimum time on the runway", "reduce to minimum approach speed and be ready for a very late landing clearance" etc, etc not to mention an ever increasing number of go-arounds this summer. Gatwick is now most definitely reaching "FULL"! Yes there are still quieter periods however with the peak periods of arrivals and departures becoming completely saturated there really isn't scope for any more aircraft being based at the airport. With Easyjet and Norwegian "literally - throwing" more aircraft at the airport, it makes you wonder just how much further these annual passenger numbers can go! With an 8% increase over the past year it could easily rise to 45 million within the next couple of years and no airport will turn new traffic away if they can avoid it! That's the equivalent of 90 million out of LHR if you allow for two runways! So currently LGW's need is way ahead of LHR. However it's very clear where all the premium traffic is not to mention all the connecting traffic and it isn't LGW. It's a completely different operation! The government need to make a decision and soon but the reality is that both airports "DESPERATELY" need more capacity, not just from a logical economic point of view but as much for safety reasons! There is only so much traffic these airports can "SAFELY" handle! Ultimately I don't personally think we'll see another single runway in my lifetime let alone two! I don't think the government will ever wake up to the safety implications of so much dithering over decision making over the years! Capacities are being breached every year and are only being breached safely due to the great skills of superb controllers who are being pushed to the very limit of safe operations! And don't "WE" know it!

[Charley B]

So Gatwick has hit 40 million PAX! Wow - that was a "decade" sooner than was predicted by some. So where does it go next? ATC at LGW are "the very best" in the world. To have the busiest single runway operation in the world by some margin is testimony to the skill and excellence of the Swanwick and LGW teams, however having spent the summer flying in and out of the airport it is now very clear that it is operating right at the limit of a "safe" operation! "Line up after the landing aircraft and be ready for an immediate", "After landing minimum time on the runway", "reduce to minimum approach speed and be ready for a very late landing clearance" etc, etc not to mention an ever increasing number of go-arounds this summer. Gatwick is now most definitely reaching "FULL"! Yes there are still quieter periods however with the peak periods of arrivals and departures becoming completely saturated there really isn't scope for any more aircraft being based at the airport. With Easyjet and Norwegian "literally - throwing" more aircraft at the airport, it makes you wonder just how much further these annual passenger numbers can go! With an 8% increase over the past year it could easily rise to 45 million within the next couple of years and no airport will turn new traffic away if they can avoid it! That's the equivalent of 90 million out of LHR if you allow for two runways! So currently LGW's need is way ahead of LHR. However it's very clear where all the premium traffic is not to mention all the connecting traffic and it isn't LGW. It's a completely different operation! The government need to make a decision and soon but the reality is that both airports "DESPERATELY" need more capacity, not just from a logical economic point of view but as much for safety reasons! There is only so much traffic these airports can "SAFELY" handle! Ultimately I don't personally think we'll see another single runway in my lifetime let alone two! I don't think the government will ever wake up to the safety implications of so much dithering over decision making over the years! Capacities are being breached every year and are only being breached safely due to the great skills of superb controllers who are being pushed to the very limit of safe operations! And don't "WE" know it!

Brilliant post....LGW and LHR both need an extra runway NOW!

[toledoashley]

Three times weekly service to Cape Town announced by Thomas Cook for next winter. On sale in December.

[MAN777]

Three times weekly service to Cape Town announced by Thomas Cook for next winter. On sale in December.

About time to !!

Hopefully end the BA rip off prices

Great holiday destination, exchange rate makes it very cheap for europeans, can we have some flights from MAN please !

[adfly]

Very interesting move, would have expected the airline to be Norwegian, or TCX from MAN. Given VS and SA having recently dropped CPT from LHR I suspect this could do rather well.

In other news it looks as though QR are still considering using LGW to further expand their LON operation.

Qatar Air Mulls Gatwick Route as Heathrow Flight Upgraded to 787 - Bloomberg Business (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-18/qatar-air-mulls-gatwick-route-as-heathrow-flight-upgraded-to-787)

[RexBanner]

A second runway at Gatwick and third runway at Heathrow definitely means more room on the ground. Just a quick question though:

Where's the extra airspace going to come from?

[Fairdealfrank]

Brilliant post....LGW and LHR both need an extra runway NOW!


Yes. Or in fact 20 years ago (although not legally possible at LGW until 2019).

The world's busiest one rwy airport and the world's busiest two rwy airport: not an enviable record and a monument to indecision delay and dither.

[DaveReidUK]

Gatwick could not make an economic case for a second runway if it was competing against a 3-runway Heathrow.

[wallp]

Given Emirates' success from LGW it doesn't seem unreasonable that Qatar might also make a go of it, perhaps using a B787?

As for TCX to Cape Town, that sounds like a great route addition. With not great competition on the route, they could do really well. Good luck to them.

I too agree that there's a case for both LGW and LHR to get new runways. It probably will but doesn't have to be an either or.

[True Blue]

I see increasing speculation on other forums of a soon to be announced return by CX on the Hong Kong route. Any views here on whether it will happen?


TB

[cornishsimon]

I'll say yes CX will return to LGW and that the CX code will be applied to the majority of BA short haul at LGW which will help with feed from those places that BA serve ex Gatters that aren't served at LHR.


cs

[wallp]

It would be great to see CX back at LGW presumably with the A350?

With rumours that QR could also return, perhaps there's an emphasis on trying to get One World members in and as cornishsimon says, offering the BA shorthaul operaion as potential feed for their flights?

[LAX_LHR]

Would these flights *need* BA feed?

The OneWorld airlines of Qatar, American and Cathay serve Manchester with little feed (cathay has flybe feed, but, I doubt they are getting significant numbers off that).

I suspect the London market in general is what is driving these possible flights more than the desire to have another feed point.

[cornishsimon]

Need ? No
Help ? Probably yes

There are places that BA serve from LGW that don't have connections like this via OW without a LGW-LHR road transfer. The likes of JER so having OW eastbound flights ex LGW would no doubt get some feed from the BA/EI network
cs

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Cathay Pacific 'to return to London Gatwick with A350' - Business Traveller (http://www.businesstraveller.com/news/102301/cathay-to-return-to-london-gatwick-with-a350)

Six flights daily into London, they must be printing money.

BA operate a point to point loco leisure model at LGW, there's got to be some reluctance to get back into the hub and spoke mentality that bled money for decades as it will only up the cost base as well as realising the network is pointing the wrong way for anyone going East surely?

[wallp]

Presumably they will wait for the South Terminal switch to happen?

Out of interest, how many wide bodies can South Terminal now handle at any one time?

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Up to B744 size on 31-38 and 13/15/17/19/21 with smaller wide bodies on 23/25/27 = 16. ( -ish)
Incidentally, is the new Pier One open yet, if not, when?

[wallp]

So with BA's 777 fleet & a few others, those stands are going to be fully utilised at peak times.

Which other airlines are down to use South Terminal alongside BA?

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

BA will have no more than 6-7 B777s on stand at once, they only have 10 based. VS are of course moving North to join Emirates, Garuda are moving to LHR, Caribbean are leaving altogether. So the only other heavies will be Thomas Cook A330s, Air Transat A310/A330s and Air Canada rouge B763s. Is that about right?

[cornishsimon]

is that 10 772s in 2015/16 and 11 for 16/17
or 9 for 14/15 and 10 for 15/16 ?




cs

[adfly]

Don't forget Norwegian with ~3 787's based on their current intentions for next summer. BA should have 11 772's based next summer, although I doubt more than 7/8 will be on the ground at once during any normal day.

[Fairdealfrank]

Gatwick could not make an economic case for a second runway if it was competing against a 3-runway Heathrow.
That is a more significant comment than many realise, obviously.

[canberra97]

Plus Westjet Boeing 767's at South Terminal for summer 2016 with at least three on the ground during the mornings.

[Wycombe]

Plus a Thomson Dreamliner or 2 one would have thought?

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Aren't Thomson staying North? BA remote park B777s if they're not turning and going. Also Westjet are more likely operating one in one out even if they do have three over a morning as you're paying three handlings teams otherwise.

Are BA really basing 11 B777s at LGW since G-VIIO was involved in the #1 engine explosion at LAS? I would be very surprised if that returns to service.

Also Pier 1, when does it open?

[LadyL2013]

Thomson has a fairly sizeable operation there now. At peak times they have I think 3 787's, 2 or 3 757's and several 737's. Will there be room for them at the North?

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

At peak times they have I think 3 787's, 2 or 3 757's and several 737's.There will be room for everyone overnight and in the first wave, it gets complicated when aircraft are delayed in summer and pitch up to find someone else on their gate and holding for parking is not uncommon in peak times. Having said that, there's a load of planning involved, at no point will an an aircraft be given a slot and find there's literally nowhere to put it (!) Worst case is a return to mass bussing from the 130s and 140s.

http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/pamslight/pdf/4e415453/EG/C/EN/Charts/AD/EG_AD_2_EGKK_2-2_en

[canberra97]

I notice on NATS website that the apron area around the new Pier 1 has opened and I asked a few weeks ago regarding when the new pier opens, seems like know one on here really knows as there has been no response.

[matt_0445]

Pier 1 still under construction.

[canberra97]

But still no date or timescale to when the new Pier 1 opens then?

[Flightrider]

WestJet planned turns at Gatwick:

737 arrives 0800 from Ottawa via St Johns, departs 0920
767 arrives 0925 from Toronto, departs 1055 to Calgary or Edmonton
767 arrives 1045 from Calgary or Edmonton, departs 1255 to Vancouver or Winnipeg
767 arrives 1125 from Vancouver or Winnipeg, departs 1315 to Toronto

Max of two 767s on the ground at once, with a third from the daily Air Canada Rouge proposed flight (1025/1200 turn).

Add to the mix the daily Cathay (arrive 0630 CX349, depart 1235 CX344) plus a potential fourth daily early afternoon Emirates DXB from 1 June (EK23/24 - B777-300 op), Norwegian's Boston and proposed Oakland services, the BA Lima, San Jose and JFK services, extra Virgin MCO 747 flights and it's a big big increase in widebody movements at Gatwick next year.

[NWSRG]

extra Virgin MCO 747 flights

More? Are they going beyond 2 (or sometimes 3) daily?

[LAX_LHR]

Plus a potential fourth daily early afternoon Emirates DXB from 1 June (EK23/24 - B777-300 op),

Where has this one come from, as EK23/24 has been earmarked for MAN for the past few years, even briefly appearing in GDS earlier this year with timings and all fare classes loaded against it?

Supposed to be a 3 class B77W arriving 1535 and departing 1705.

[True Blue]

So has CX gone as far as assigning flight numbers and times for this rumoured service to HKG?


TB

[Flightrider]

EK and CX have both applied for slots on the basis of the flights and schedules given. 4th EK was requested from 1 June. Looks like EK have decided LGW is a better bet than MAN for the extra daily, as they didn't apply for any increase in frequency at MAN.

VS MCO is up from a max of 15 flights per week in Summer 15 to a max of 18 747 flights per week in Summer 16, so a definite increase.

[RealFish]

'Presumably they will wait for the South Terminal switch to happen?'



When is the switch going to take place and BA head south?

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

The terminal switch is for Nov-16, subject to change.
BA moves South
VS move North
EZY consolidate North

[wallp]

The terminal switch is for Nov-16, subject to change.
BA moves South
VS move North
EZY consolidate North

Are they the only airlines moving? I thought there were more than that?

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Are they the only airlines moving? I thought there were more than that? Gatwick Airport reshuffle: easyJet leads most complex terminal reorganisation with BA and Virgin also moving | News & Advice | Travel | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/gatwick-airport-reshuffle-easyjet-leads-most-complex-terminal-reorganisation-with-ba-and-virgin-also-9997624.html)

Have a look :) That's all I was aware of but you might be right.

[wallp]

How many aircraft will the new Pier 1 accommodate?

It does feel as though with BA, Norwegian, Thomas Cook, Monarch, Ryanair and all the others, the South Terminal is going to be absolutely chocka at peak time

[strawberry Ribena]

Only 5!


All five stands will be pier serviced with new airbridges
Each of the gaterooms will have seating for over a hundred people

Gatwick Media Centre ? Pier 1 demolition hails new era for London Gatwick (http://www.mediacentre.gatwickairport.com/press-releases/2013/2013-05-31.aspx)

[racedo]

Gatwick Airport reshuffle: easyJet leads most complex terminal reorganisation with BA and Virgin also moving | News & Advice | Travel | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/gatwick-airport-reshuffle-easyjet-leads-most-complex-terminal-reorganisation-with-ba-and-virgin-also-9997624.html)

Have a look :) That's all I was aware of but you might be right.

Love the bit in the link which states passengers have often been confused about terminals :ugh::ugh::ugh:
Yup have done so and then had 5 people following me as they did same thinge:O

[yotty]

Skip, yes BA do still plan to operate 11 B772s from S16. A temporary hangar is being constructed in LAS for a Boeing Team to carry out the repairs.

[MKY661]

I'm sure I saw on this thread a while ago that Monarch may be moving as well?

[adfly]

Since there seem to be a number of changes to the long haul schedules from LGW next year I thought I would try to summarise them.

Rumours -

CX to start a daily Hong Kong service on an A359.
EK to start a 4th Daily Dubai on a 77W.
QR considering restarting Doha on a 788.
GA to move to LHR from the end of March.
DU planning on serving South Africa, India, China, South America, no definite time-scales given as yet.

Air Canada Rouge

Toronto, 7 weekly 763. (From 20th May, seasonal)


Air Transat

Calgary, 3 weekly A332
Halifax, 2 weekly 738 (1 stop)
Montreal, 3 weekly A313 (2 weekly S15)
St John's, 2 weekly 738
Toronto, 11 weekly A313/332/333 (10 weekly S15, almost all A333 for S16)
Vancouver, 7 weekly A332 (6 weekly S15)

Atlantic Star Airlines

Saint Helena, charters operated by TUIfly 738 (From 20 March)

British Airways

Antigua, 6 weekly 772 (7 weekly S15)
Barbados, 7 weekly 772
Bermuda, 7 weekly 772
Cancun, 3 weekly 772
Grenada, 2 weekly 772 (1 stop)
Kingston, 3 weekly 772
Las Vegas (Dropped from 25th April, was 3 weekly S15)
Lima, 3 weekly 772 (From 4th May)
Mauritius, 3 weekly 772
New York JFK, 7 weekly 772 (From 1st May)
Orlando, 13 weekly 772 (Was 14 weekly S15)
Port of Spain, 5 weekly 772
Providenciales, 2 weekly 772 (1 stop, 1 weekly in S15)
Punta Cana, 2 weekly 772
St Kitts, 2 weekly 772 (1 stop)
St Lucia, 7 weekly 772
San Jose de Costa Rica, 2 weekly 772 (From 4th May)
Tampa, 7 weekly 772
Tobago, 2 weekly 772 (1 stop)

Caribbean Airlines

Port of Spain (Dropped, 3/4 weekly 763 in S15)

Emirates

Dubai, 21 weekly A388 (14 weekly A388 + 7 weekly 77W in S15)

Med-View Airline

Lagos, 4 weekly 763 (started W15)

Norwegian Long Haul

Boston, 4 weekly 787 (From 13th May)
Fort Lauderdale, 1 weekly 787
Los Angeles, 4 weekly 787
New York JFK, 7 weekly 787 (6 weekly in S15)
Orlando, 2 weekly 787 (1 weekly S15)

Thomas Cook Airlines

Cancun, 2 weekly A332
Cayo Coco, 1 weekly A332 (New for S16)
Holguin, 1 weekly A332

Thomson Airways

Aruba, 1 weekly 788
Boa Vista, 2 weekly 752
Cancun, 6 weekly 788
Liberia, 1 weekly 788 (started W15)
Mauritius, 1 weekly 788
Montego Bay, 3 weekly 788
Orlando Sanford, 2 weekly 788 (3 weekly S15)
Puerto Plata, 1 weekly 788
Puerto Vallarta, 1 weekly 788
Punta Cana, 3 weekly 788 (2 weekly S15?)
Sal, 1 weekly 752 (2 weekly S15)
Varadero, 1 weekly 788 (New for S16)

Virgin Atlantic

Antigua, 3 weekly A333
Barbados, 7 weekly A333
Cancun, 3 weekly 744
Havana, 2 weekly 744
Grenada, 2 weekly A333 (1 stop)
Las Vegas, 7 weekly 744
Montego Bay, 3 weekly 744
Orlando, up to 18 weekly 744 (up to 14 weekly in S15)
St Lucia, 3 weekly A333
Tobago, 1 weekly A333 (1 stop)

WestJet

Calgary, 5 weekly 763 (From 8th May)
Edmonton, 2 weekly 763 (From 7th May)
St John's, 7 weekly 737 (From 8th May)
Toronto, 7 weekly 763 (From 7th May)
Vancouver, 6 weekly 763 (From 8th May)
Winnipeg, 1 weekly 763 (From 7th May)

[toledoashley]

Are you not missing St Lucia on the Virgin list?

[Tigger4Me]

Are you not missing St Lucia on the Virgin list?

And how about San Juan on Norwegian? If not my holiday is getting off to a bad start!

[adfly]

Added St Lucia for Virgin, Norwegian to San Juan appears to be winter only as it stands?

[Tigger4Me]

Added St Lucia for Virgin, Norwegian to San Juan appears to be winter only as it stands?

Sorry Adfly. Just realised your post is headed "S16" and my flights are April. Wrist slap for me!

[Fairdealfrank]

What about BJL on MT?

Good comprehensive list for summer 2016 longhaul, thanks adfly.

[Wycombe]

Fair point, I guess if you're going to include St. Johns on a 738 then maybe BJL (and the likes of SID) should be on the list aswell ;-)

[adfly]

Glad my post has proven useful! :) BJL appears to be winter seasonal, as does SID with Thomas Cook. I have, however added Thomson to BVC/SID since they also operate over the summer.

[wallp]

Glad my post has proven useful! :) BJL appears to be winter seasonal, as does SID with Thomas Cook. I have, however added Thomson to BVC/SID since they also operate over the summer.

Interesting post about long haul ops at Gatwick. So many options to get to/from Canada which is great. Makes me wonder why the Canadian market does so well in comparison to other long haul markets?

[easydan319]

According to airlineroute.net Norwegian have filed planned schedule for 3x weekly Gatwick - Oakland starting 12 May 16

DY7073 LGW - OAK 13:00 - 16:00 - M,Th,Su
DY7074 OAK - LGW 18:40 - 12:45+1 - M,Th,Su

[True Blue]

With the slow expansion of Norwegian from Lgw to N America, this must be starting to have an effect on lost revenue to the big 3 across the Atlantic and their cosy arrangement to try and funnel us all through high fares Lhr. Previous reports suggested that Norwegian carried about 200k to N America in their first year, what might it be in 2016, in excess of 300k? That is a lot of lost fares. Add to that the large increase in capacity from Lgw to Canada next year and Lgw is starting to be a thorn in the side for Lhr long haul.


Hope Norwegian does really well on these routes.


Interestingly, with the delay announced today for the Lhr runway decision, what do airlines hoping to expand their London services do now? A new runway is now further away again, so do they wait or opt for Lgw?


I continue to be amazed that an airport that has been full for many years now, can continue to find slots on a continuing basis to take services from Lgw. Garuda, Vietnam etc. I think if I was on that commission, I would be asking Lhr at what point they would stop taking services from Lgw, full stop. Just another reason I believe very little of what Lhr has to say, especially around all the massive benefits we are going to see if they are allowed to expand.


TB

[CabinCrewe]

who said LHR was completely full?

[True Blue]

that is the PR spin I have been hearing for years. Maybe I am completely stupid and have got it all wrong.

[PAXboy]

LHR is full. Have you:


sat in the taxy queue for departure for 45 minutes? (engines running)
been onboard when a slot has been missed?
arrived on time and then been in the stack for 20 minutes?
arrived at the allocated gate but it's still full and there is no other gate to send you to?
waited for immigation?
waited for bag handling?

These are but a few ways that LHR has dealt with the problem. If they had to prevent all routine inbound holding and outbound taxy delays? Then count how many a/c they can handle.

Bear in mind that, in some ways, LHR is rather like the NHS. The NHS broke ten years ago but is kept going by staff working above and beyond and without overtime. LHR is kept working because they have bent all the rules and restrictions and enough clients STILL want them enough to pay through the nose. Both LHR and the NHS are providing a service long after most others would have ground to a halt.

LGW (and I'm not anti) has benefitted by having flights taken away from it that has allowed more new clients to come in and keep it busy.

[Itchin McCrevis]

that is the PR spin I have been hearing for years. Maybe I am completely stupid and have got it all wrongOh come we know you are neither stupid or gulible enough to take PR soundbites at face value - everyone knows the term "full" in this context is not an absolute, it is a relative - Air Transport in the UK is growing by around 6%, Heathrow is only managing 1-2% - so it is "full" in the sense that it can't keep pace with market growth any more. The Norwegian case you quote is merely one example of other airports taking up the 4-5% diiferential which would be at Heathrow if it had the option.

With a few tweaks here and there the wit of man is never beyond wringing out the odd extra slot or increment of capacity every year - a percentage of which has to go first to new entrants under slot allocation rules thus allowing in the occasional (low frequency) Vietnam's and Garuda's . Failing that it is still possible to buy your way in to Heathrow under slot trading rules if you have the cash.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

continuing basis to take services from Lgw.
The decision is taken by the operator who finds LHR a more profitable operation than LGW in this market. It's not a LGW service by right stolen by another business, it's a London route choosing an airpoert that fits it's business model better, with GA and VN due to alliance connectivity at T4, albeit limited.
this must be starting to have an effect on lost revenue to the big 3 across the Atlantic and their cosy arrangement to try and funnel us all through high fares Lhr.
One of the main complaints on the Manchester thread, and it's a good point is this. MAN cannot compete with LHR for point to point long haul as LHR keeps siphoning off traffic on cheaper connections than MAN's direct can offer. This is because, e.g. LHR-NYC has so much frequency and capacity that the airlines are effectively capacity dumping Economy seats. Now, both of these cannot be true at the same time. It's great that Norwegian are offering a good deal in the market, but it's not that much cheaper than some of the other deals on offer.

btw who are the big three?
North American / Caribbean Transatlantic Deps LHR 2015S
AC 11 daily
DL 12 daily + VS 17 daily = 29 daily
UA 17 daily
AA 17 daily + BA 49 daily = 66 daily

[True Blue]

I refer to the alliances as opposed to individual airlines. I am not suggesting that Norwegian are much or any cheaper, rather that this is revenue that would have hit the bank accounts of the alliance airlines that is not now doing so. In many cases, flying to Lhr was the only option, e.g. London - Boston. Next year, some of those pax will use Lgw. And that revenue erosion will get worse if Norwegian starts to introduce more direct flights from local airports. I know that a hub system is marketed as a great benefit to us, but is a far bigger benefit to the airlines themselves. They must be starting to wonder about revenue erosion.

[Seljuk22]

Norwegian will launch Boston on 27th March (instead of mid May) and will fly 5 times a week (original planned 4 times a week).

[Fairdealfrank]

Don't forget that, to some extent, new carriers entering the market and offering lower fares does generate new business from pax who would not have considered doing the journeys at the higher fares charged by the legacies. U2 and FR are classic examples of this.

BTW, be under no illusion that LHR is full and has been for many years!

[True Blue]

So Cathay are returning to Lgw from September 2016, 4 times a week with the A350.


Cathay Pacific?s new Gatwick service to offer more choice and flexibility for London travel (http://www.cathaypacific.com/cx/en_HK/about-us/press-room/press-release/2015/Cathay-Pacific-new-Gatwick-service-for-London-travel.html)

[Itchin McCrevis]

So Cathay are returning to Lgw from September 2016, 4 times a week with the A350.

HKG is a big market so it's a sure bet that LGW will have enough local demand to support a service. That still makes it 5 x 777's from LHR daily versus 0.6 x 350's daily (and that's just Cathay), although we should reasonably expect LGW to work up to a daily service in time.

This does not prove that Gatwick is the answer to the London problem.

[cornishsimon]

It's a nice addition to the LGW portfolio. Plus some limited BA feed, some duplicates of LHR routes such as GLA and EDI but some new additions for CX such as JER etc


cs

[True Blue]

Another forum reporting that EK want to go 4 daily to Dubai next summer and 5 daily winter 16/17.

[cornishsimon]

What equipment are EK looking to use ?


cs

[Plastic787]

Hopefully in low vis it's not the equipment that means nobody else can use the ILS :ugh:

[wallp]

So Cathay are returning to Lgw from September 2016, 4 times a week with the A350.


Cathay Pacific?s new Gatwick service to offer more choice and flexibility for London travel (http://www.cathaypacific.com/cx/en_HK/about-us/press-room/press-release/2015/Cathay-Pacific-new-Gatwick-service-for-London-travel.html)

So finally they've confirmed. You'd think that there is every reason to hope this route can prove successful and lead to an eventual daily service. Has this route happened because of the A350?

So this will be another heavy using South Terminal. I imagine the South Terminal will be quite congested at peak times

[kcockayne]

If it is going to happen 4 times weekly, then they must be planning on an eventual daily service, mustn't they ? Just a matter of, "how soon"?

[True Blue]

With the delay to the runway expansion decision and Lhr being allegedly full (although someone did post, maybe on the Lhr thread that the load factor there is about 76%), will we see more long haul as airlines start to hedge their bets and want to secure more slots before the full sign goes up at Lgw as well.

[rutankrd]

No- Further Long haul will continue to seek (buy) access to Heathrow for the foreseeable future in a very managed way.

Heathrow will continue to lose short haul frequencies and the results will be decline in % of transfer traffic however with an up side for airline yields- particularly for IAG and leading *A carriers as terminators are far greater than those from transfer/transit tickets.

Typically the short haul sector books a loss on transfer traffic particularly in the back of the bus so to speak.

[DaveReidUK]

and LHR being allegedly full (although someone did post, maybe on the LHR thread that the load factor there is about 76%)

There's no contradiction there, sounds like you're confusing runway utilisation with passenger numbers.

[Itchin McCrevis]

will we see more long haul as airlines start to hedge their bets and want to secure more slots before the full sign goes up at Lgw as well.Yes - we already are seeing it, long haul growth at Gatwick has pushed out short-haul growth already for Summer 16. Gatwick want this of course and their pricing policy is being geared towards it. The only other game in town for long haul is Stansted and most really don't want to go there yet so expect an increasing long haul slot grab at Gatwick over the next few years.

This will be in addition to, not in place of, the Heathrow situation that Rutankrd describes.

[True Blue]

I see Norwegian has Oakland on sale on their site and Lax increases to 5 a week from May 16.

[canberra97]

True blue

Norwegian announced LGW to Oakland and the increase to LAX a week ago.