GATWICK

[FRatSTN]

Remember BFS101 that FR had to limit the number of passengers because of the runway length at BHD and that would have effected yields.

Whilst STN is indeed my favourite airport, that doesn't mean that I want every carrier to serve it or move from elsewhere, but I do think STN is in need for more domestic traffic. It would of course be sad to see BE leave LGW as that too is a great airport, but in a different way.

However, I don't think BE are competitive enough to compete directly with the likes of BA and EZY at LGW (especially since the charging structure at LGW already puts BE in a less competiteive position). LGW want bigger planes to maximise the efficiency of it's runway and that means higher charges for BE's smaller Dash 8 and Embraer aircraft. In recent years, BE have been cutting back in LGW and losing their market share in London as a whole as other carriers have been growing their domestic traffic (those carriers being BA and EZY).

STN has more capacity for growth, less direct competition (in most cases, none at all), an underserved domestic route network and BE would not be disadvantaged by paying higher charges than its rivals. For those who say FR is the problem, Rubbish! FR fly ONE domestic route from STN and that's to Derry. There would be virtually nill competition between BE and FR.

[Skipness One Echo]

STN has major capacity for growth mainly because the market chooses not to use it. Only the locos have made a go of it and even EZY have downsized. BE need to carry way more full fare business traffic to turn a profit than people think. They sit between EZY and T3 in that respect. By all means they could use STN, all that would happen is that EZY and GR would ramp up and steal the existing LGW market. There is little evidence to suggest the market would be loyal and troop to Essex, some might but BE would be carving a whole new niche for itself at an airport with lower yields but admittedly lower costs.

[FRatSTN]

STN has major capcity for growth because BAA exlpoited pretty much anybody who used it!

[nigel osborne]

fraSTN

Business passengers just don't want to travel to the sticks ,thats why American Airlines failed twice, and others like SAS likewise. Thats the bottom line problem for STN Im afraid. Only TK have been a success.

Unless the Govt forces large full airlines into STN they won't switch from LHR.Even then likely they wouldn't get the top end passengers,who will use other airlines out of LHR.

The next problem is the alliances..

What does the Govt do.. say to One World you can stay at LHR but Star Alliance airlines have to go to STN..utterly crazy, as they would just connect via another Euro Hub instead.

Nigel

[FRatSTN]

Who gave you the idea of full service airlines going to Stansted?

I hope you're not considering FlyBe as a full service carrier.

[scr1]

FlyBe should perhaps consider a shift to Stansted. BHD, INV, IOM, NCL and NQY are all not served from Stansted, all of which (I'm not so sure on INV) have been served from Stansted in the past

Yes STN has been tried before from INV. By Air UK who pulled out in 1998 as the loads were very low.

[cornishsimon]

Ryanair was once operating twice daily 738 STN-NQY so the numbers were there once upon a time !!


cs

[nigel osborne]

FRAstn,

Well if STN is to massively expand as the Govt have intimated it needs money now that the bail outs from LHR full fare airlines reaped by BAA have ran out.

Easy and Ryan Air are not going to bring you much money in, so thats 90% of STN current flights catered for.

So where does it come from..Freight yes STN does quite well, but under the MAG group now will probably be drip fed new freight flts as sure MAN will now get first shout.

MAG are not going to throw money at STN for the likes of a 2nd runway (as the Govt and Boris hope) unless it brings in lots of dosh from big full fare airlines .

Oh and your right Fly Be are far more low cost that full fare !

Nigel

[ATNotts]

MAG are not going to throw money at STN for the likes of a 2nd runway (as the Govt and Boris hope) unless it brings in lots of dosh from big full fare airlines .

Nigel,

You're absolutely right, putting national infrastructure, such as airports, and the railways into private hands ensures that the government has limited strategic control over it's development. However that is an ideological decision that was put in train by a certain "late" prime minister and her government - and subsequent governments have done nothing to change that model.

That said, MAG is hardly a private company, more a quasi independent arm of local government in the Northwest. One of the few "nationalised companies" left in UK.

[Fairdealfrank]

Forget about airlines being "forced" to use STN instead of LHR.

First, in a private sector and deregulated industry, the government has no right and no business to determine who goes where, and years of court cases and litigation would render any such attempts futile. To enforce this policy, a certain amount of public ownership would be necessary, and there is no political appetite for this.

Second, airlines at LHR are there because of the available connectivity and premium business. This is how they make their money (pax down the back are the icing on the cake). These are not, and never will be, available at STN. Carriers denied access to LHR will go to where these are available: AMS, CDG and FRA.

It is as simple as that, and it is not just STN, It applies equally to LGW, airports in other parts of the UK, and to any proposed estuary airport.

[wowzz]

Can I just say that having used LGW recently, how pleasant the experience was. Everyone was polite [OK-so Pret staff are not employed by the airport, but you get my drift] and the security person was most apologetic when he asked if he could check my hand-luggage.
Given that I am in the fortunate position of choosing which UK airport to use, LGW came out as a preferred choice on this visit.

[True Blue]

FRatStn wrote"With BHD being substantially more convenient for pratically anybody in Belfast, I think a lot of people, if not the majority would still prefer going from BHD to LHR or LGW rather than travel out to BFS to get into STN, LTN or SEN if they were heading more to the north or east of London."

FR, if the above is true and you seem to be great supporter of this idea that everyone wants to use Bhd, then why
1. Are all of Ezy first flights to London area airports tomorrow morning full ex Bfs, yet the 2 flights ex Bhd to Lgw still have seats? All these pax have a free choice to book out of Bhd yet still choose not to.
2. Since November, all these pax to Lgw who would prefer to use Bhd still use Bfs. Ezy have maintained their pax numbers. There has been a large increase in capacity out of Bhd, but only an increase of about 12k pax per month in numbers. So the 2 operators using Bhd to Lgw are now flying with lower load factors and no doubt, yield is poor. Ei has already made the decision to pull their 4th rotation to Lgw from Bhd. Now there is lots of spare capacity out of Bhd, yet the Caa stats show that pax are still using Bfs. Explain please.

Why is it that all the statements that pax would prefer to use Bhd are not supported by the Caa stats? Bhd to Lgw is a really good example to use, lots of seats yet pax still book out of Bfs. Yet we are told they want to use Bhd in preference to Bfs. I look forward to your explanation.

TB

[Fairdealfrank]

Suspect it's a case of: pay your money and take your choice.

Clearly there is demand for flights from both BHD and BFS to LHR, LGW, LTN, STN and SEN.

Good!

Yes, of course those heading for north and east London may prefer LTN, STN or SEN. It's easier and quicker to get from Belfast to Aldergrove than from Heathrow or Gatwick to the opposite side of London.

[nigel osborne]

Fairdealfrank.

Yes can't argue with any of that.

AT Notts.

Andrew yes understand where you are coming from.

Nigel

[True Blue]

Am reading that KE may be returning to Lgw, maybe as soon as next month.

TB

[Skipness One Echo]

Korean Air plots return to Gatwick as Vietnam Airlines expands | Buying Business Travel (http://buyingbusinesstravel.com/news/2220616-korean-air-plots-return-gatwick-vietnam-airlines-expands)
A seasonal long haul route on sale with four weeks notice after having recently cancelled and rebooked all forward bookings to other carriers and airports?
This is why I never wanted a Korea in aviation....

[canberra97]

Does anyone know the status of Air Zimbabwe and there planed return to Gatwick on 01st July 2013 as Gatwick Airports wikipedia page doesn't showed them listed anymore.

I did a search regarding any such information but there seems to be no recent updates on the Air Zimbabwe website or else where!

I was rather looking forward to the return of Air Zimbabwe to LGW especially considering they had been a long term airline at the airport and LGW severely lacks routes to the African continent as well as being the only direct flight from the UK to Zimbabwe.

[True Blue]

KE apparently back from 2 June, 3 weekly with 772.

TB

[Capetonian]

Information supplied to the GDSs for Air Zim :

UM 722 ops WED SUN HRE I LGW S 0900 1830 eff 03JUL13 EQP=762

UM 725 ops TUE THU LGW S HRE I 1930 0630+1 eff 01JUL13 EQP=762

Which implies a positioning flight HRE LGW and that it will sit at LGW from 1830 on SUN to 1930 on TUE. Maintenance?

Somehow I don't think this will happen.

[canberra97]

Many thanks for the information Capetonian

I too wonder if this will happen but I hope it does, we shall have to wait and see won't we :-)

[SCANDIC]

G-DAJC was parked outside the hangar has she come back from Condor for good now

[Funderblaster]

Yep, back in the UK for the summer. Expected to go back to Condor for the winter :ok:

[True Blue]

Germania starting 2 weekly Lgw to Pristina from July. Flights on their web site for booking.

[davidjohnson6]

Times for the LGW-PRN-LGW route are lousy and prices are not cheap, but with little competition there's not a lot the passengers can do about it. Can't see the passengers wanting to fly via Belgrade, Skopje has only a limited service from Wizzair and Tirana is a long way by road.

Why did BA stop the route ?

[ArtfulDodger]

Gatwick Airport: Controlled explosions carried out


Story here........... Gatwick Airport: Controlled explosions carried out | The Airport Informer (http://wp.me/p2jrV4-Hz)

[Drink Up Thee Cider]

Last month there was some chat here about a major movement in the LGW slot portfolio. My sources tell me the bidding has hotted up and it looks like a three-way scrap between Easy, IAG/Vueling and, of all people, FR.

Apparently MO'L has entered the fray in the last few days and overcome a lifetime aversion to paying for slots. By all accounts, Niall has been told to get the job done!!!

[looseheadprop]

Told you so

[cornishsimon]

So is it flymaybe looking to exit the LGW market ?


cs

[vectisman]

I do find those that refer to Flybe as 'Flymaybe' rather irritating. It is an old and sad play on words long past its sell by date. I say that as someone with no connection to the airline.
There again I am always perplexed how people can 'hate' or 'love' an airline.
They are just companies not living beings.

V.

[cornishsimon]

As you said it's a play on words, same as me calling London gatwick airport, "Gatters"


cs

[EI-BUD]

A large slot sale at LGW may not be related to BE, what about Monarch, Thomas Cook or Thomson? Given the growth of landing fees they may see a value in moving to Stansted, or indeed some operations to Luton? Is it possibly one of these?

BE seems to be pressing forward with connectivity with companies like Thomas Cook offering connectivity with LGW and other airports, would seem odd to axe LGW so soon after this.

It may be also that the airport are planning to increase charges and see off some of the prop operators, such as Aurigny, Flybe q800 flights etc. Putting these up for sale, potentially may create more interest in the airport? and a premium. Just a thought.
I would have also thought that by now if you were going to see a larger slot holder go, it might be a difficult thing to keep under wraps. I.e. the identity of the carrier.

Aer Lingus separately have not released a timetable for BHD LGW, anybody on the inside of LGW or EI that have any info on this? Is it to return for Winter?

EI-BUD

[Dannyboy39]

Monarch, Thomas Cook or Thomson? Given the growth of landing fees they may see a value in moving ...some operations to Luton?

The trend is in the wrong direction at LTN for TOM and ZB, instead a bigger emphasis on the former "outstations".

[j636]

Could DY close there LGW base, when I have looked at there sun routes fares are very low. Anyone know how loads are for them?

[Ramper1]

They are recruiting more cabin crew for lgw so doubt it will close

[Airlift21]

DY are currently expanding at LGW, so I can't imagine them selling any slots. However, I have heard a rumour that it's a major player moving to Stansted, but no idea who. It's complete speculation at the moment and there are a few rumours going around at LGW as to who MIGHT be leaving.

[FRatSTN]

Is it known that somebody actually is going to leave? Is it just several reductions from carriers or simply just utilising more slots?

If an airline does leave then I think FlyBe would be the one to go since they are so unhappy about the pricing structure. Aer Lingus is a strong possibilty although I can't see them moving to Stansted or Luton in all honesty.

Having said that, now that Stansted is owned by MAG, could someone like Thomson or Monarch see a benefit in relocating (or atleast moving some flights) to Essex to operate under the same management as their large base at Manchester? The timing is about right for Summer 2014 announcements for these carriers also and it was previously stated by MAG that they would be talking to the big carriers at Manchester to entice them to Stansted as well.

It will certianly be interesting to see what the outcome is. Perhaps a Ryanair base at Gatwick even? I wonder what the cost would be for Stansted? Or could Ryanair close their Luton base (which has stagnated at 4 aircraft for many years) and move to Gatwick? There's so many possible outcomes.

What I do think is that if any airline does leave Gatwick, they won't be leaving the London market, a move to Stansted or Luton would be much more likely! I don't really think many airlines with a significant presence in the market would give up on London! Let the war begin, perhaps?

[cornishsimon]

In all honesty, if an airline is moving out of LGW or reducing its presence to leave LGW slots available I seriously hope that IAG will be looking at this.

The chance to add some more longhaul leisure destinations to the LGW base and also some more shorthaul sun routes should appeal to them with the now reduced cost base of BA @ LGW.

And note that I do say IAG, not BA.


cs

[EI-BUD]

It may be a case that FR want a greater presence @ LGW in order to keep STN management in check. Afterall STN with such scale for FR, its cost base there is a v high priority. A greater presence at LGW could be a good lever for them.

[LNIDA]

DY are very happy with load factor out of LGW 83% on first 2 weeks of April and some very impressive loads on NCE & LPA despite the rather less than ideal flight times on the latter. 3rd biggest carrier behind Easyjet & BA at LGW

[cornishsimon]

BA to start LGW-LCA 3 weekly starting 30th June.


cs

[Skipness One Echo]

DY are already bigger than MON, TCX and TOM in Q1 from base launch? Are you sure?

[ericlday]

Is that for 2013, if so its a wee bit late for some folk who will already have booked the holiday flights.

[LAX_LHR]

The in flight mag also has direct flights to TFS & SPL from EDI does this
imply possible future base?


May 2013 mag just has EDI-BGO/ARN/CPH/OSL as direct routes?

[LNIDA]

Yes the website says the same, but the route map from the UK shows also EDI-TFS/SPL so not sure, but with TFS a new base from November with 2 units in addition to 6 at LPA I guess direct flights maybe on the cards ? I think a figure of 370 flights a week from LGW by end of Summer rings a bell and everyone thinks a 787 is likely at LGW late next year

[LN-KGL]

I would say the Norwegian B787 visits to LGW starts this summer. The first B787 will arrive OSL end of June. This aircraft will be used for crew training out of OSL, ARN and CPH on regular flights to ALC, BCN and LGW.

[canberra97]

Perhaps Norwegian once they have a few Boeing 787s in service may consider a LGW to FLL route similar to there forthcoming Oslo to Fort Lauderdale route, it would give LGW a new destination in the USA plus it would be a very niche route to operate.

[LN-KGL]

You may also add Bangkok to that wish list canberra97

[749957]

Long shot I accept, but as a regular user of the BA flights, am curious if anyone has heard even the remotest rumour of a replacement...LHR is a way away, and the train is a pain...day returns are now a thing of the past. It seems to me that LGW had a discrete catchment area plus of course a bunch of long haul (Caribbean and Florida predominantly) that may have also been fed from MAN. That said, yields on the slots presumably higher on whatever BA are flying instead....

[FRatSTN]

All this speculation is indeed about FlyBe. The Sundy Times is reporting that EasyJet could buy all of FlyBe's Gatwick slots for £20m although FlyBe is thought to also be talking to other airlines.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/business/Companies/article1258087.ece

Would this be FlyBe out of the London market then? Has anybody heard anything about a possible move to another London airport or would they just pocket this extra £20m should they sell?

Will be intersting to see if EasyJet pick up some existing FlyBe routes eg. LGW-NCL or if they would just use the slots for more new routes across Europe... Or if there's anything new from BA/IAG or another carrier?

[cornishsimon]

Worth considering that flybe carry BA codeshare flight numbers on several routes onto LGW for the purpose of onward connections.

Is it beyond the realms to hope that BA might pick up the slots and add some domestic capacity back to LGW and expand ?

cs

[Skipness One Echo]

It would be odd. They abandoned the markets at NCL, ABZ, IOM and INV to flybe and simply dropped MAN. What rationale would they have for going back? Feed is not a key focus at LGW for BA.
You'd have to be super loyal to BA to use a one stop via LGW rather than fly direct. They also have a one wave long haul operation which mostly ends before mid afternoon.

[davidjohnson6]

Apart from Flybe and possibly also Aurigny, are there any other airlines that are likely to be vulnerable to Gatwick's landing fees squeezing out aircraft operating with relatively small numbers of passengers at peak times ?

I wondered if Atlantic Airways might perhaps slightly change their schedule by a couple of hours to move from peak to off-peak times, but with a monopoly seasonal route flown twice per week with an RJ85, I doubt they would notice the price hike that much

[davidjohnson6]

On a separate note, the fact that Flybe are talking to specific airlines about slots suggests that the slots will not go into the general pool but will instead be sold in return for cash or at least something of value.

I'm aware that slots at Heathrow have a significant monetary value, but how often has it happened in the past that Gatwick slots have been sold for cash ?

[LNIDA]

£20 Million would be small beer for FR,EZ or DY,BA could also buy for vueling or its own gatwick operation. Is this the start of the end for Flybe, of course BA still own around 14% of Flybe?

[FRatSTN]

I don't think so, it's most likely they just want out of Gatwick because they're so naffed off by the pricing structure. EasyJet will be willing to get straight in there and buy them out because they are like vultures at Gatwick, any opportunity to grow then they will, perhaps also a move by EasyJet to entice them out of Gatwick promptly?

[Omnipresent]

I can see perfectly why easyJet would be interested in the slots, but Stelios will go apoplectic at any overall significant capacity increase.

[chaps2011]

In news today
Deals/Restructuring / Flybe confirms Gatwick slots sale talks THEBUSINESSDESK.COM (http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwest/news/466377-flybe-confirms-gatwick-slots-sale-talks.html?news_section=4158)


Chaps

[Airbourne-Adamski]

25 pairs of slots, how much of flybe's operation will this affect at LGW, or is this them pulling out?
Just hope my friends at flybe are not seriously affected by this.

[Barling Magna]

No doubt they'll look elsewhere. STN I expect, or SEN as an outside bet.

[BOHEuropean]

Airbourne,

"25 pairs of slots, how much of flybe's operation will this affect at LGW, or is this them pulling out?"

There are 25 Flybe flights listed at LGW today, so presumably, this deal is for the entire LGW operation.

I can't see the airline dropping the London market, so I would expect surely, a move to LTN/STN/SEN as a real possibility. Flybe already serves LTN, but is there enough room for them to fly in/out in terms of available stands?

[virginblue]

Don't see how relocating elsewhere would make sense. Flybe currently serves INV, NCL, GCI, JER, BHD, IOM and NQY.

INV: easyJet will simply ramp up capacity from LGW and LTN.

JER: I suppose BA will add some capacity at LGW or start up from LCY and easyJet (or another airline) is likely to open a route to JER from LGW. Probably some opportunity for BE to extend seasonal flying from LTN, but the main customer base will be catered for from airlines that remain in business at LGW. At STN, traditionally a rather poor C.I. market with a lot of airlines coming and going, they would have to push out Blue Islands.

NCL: My gut feeling is that this is a route BE cannot transfer to STN, SEN or LTN as it caters for a specific "south of London" catchment area. It is a marginal anyway.

BHD: I don't see the point of serving BHD from LTN, STN or SEN in competition to existing BFS services at those airports by easyJet. Who would make the trek to SEN or STN instead of flying to BHD from LHR or simply switching to LGW-BFS?

NQY: If easyJet is not interested in serving LGW-NQY, I could see it work for BE from LTN as the Cornish market will simply will have to accept whatever is offered as the LON terminus. But as easyJet alreadly serves NQY from SEN, I doubt that they would be uninterested in flying from LGW by moving and expanding its SEN-NQY operation.

IOM: Here I can see LTN as an option as IOM-LTN has a bit of a tradition as a farecracker route. But it really depends on how much additional capacity easyJet would deploy on LGW-IOM. If they only add a second daily flight, it owuld leave some space for Flybe to do a double daily into LTN.

GCI: I suppose Aurigny will add capacity to LGW and STN and that's it. Maybe Blue Islands throws in LCY for the fat cat business if decent slots are available at LCY.

In short, most of Flybe's LGW business will be taken up by other airlines, so there is little point of replicating the existing LGW network at one of the north/east London airports.

[JC25]

Flybe have 25 slot pairs, but they have not confirmed how many they want to dispose of. It could be 5, could be 12 and or could be all of them. We won't know until a deal is done and its announced.

[True Blue]

NAS now seem to have released the bulk of W13 flights out of Lgw, with many of the new routes having services over the winter. They have a UK site, with Lgw as the main departure airport, but some of the destinations are not listed under Lgw, but with all destinations. Examples are IBZ, AGP and LPA. Would this not cost them bookings as some people would not think to look under the list of all destinations as opposed to those listed under Lgw? Would they not be better to fix this?

TB

[Drink Up Thee Cider]

Following on from the last couple of days news about BE flogging LGW slots, a little bird tells me that the deals being negotiated exclude the GCI slots.

Grapevine suggests they could be sold to Blue Island. Interesting times for Aurigney............

[virginblue]

Surprised to hear that. Why would Flybe limit its choices by promising to sell slots to a certain airline for a certain route? Does not make much sense economically.

If it happens, we are looking at five slot pairs. This would mean 4m GBP - are Blue Islands' pockets deep enough for that kind of spending?

[LN-KGL]

With first month of flying LGW-ALC completed for Norwegian, it's time to reveal the passenger number and cabin factor for four return flights (Saturdays) in April.
Passengers flown = 1265
Seat per aircraft = 186
Average passengers per flight = 158.1
Cabin factor = 85.0%

Not bad for a start up month.

Source: AENA

[kuningan]

Flybe's duty is to its shareholders - not the residents of Guernsey - if they can extract the same from Blue Island as Easyjet, then fair enough - but to sell the slots for less than they are worth is a dereliction of duty to shareholders (unless there is another gain that offsets it).

All of the airports set on losing some or all of their Gatwick connections are concerned - Guernsey will be keeping more than half of what they currently have - a lot better than some others.

[macuser]

Surely BE are just considering the sale of LGW slots? What the purchaser does with those slots remains to be seen. The slots are not paired with an origin/destination airport.

[Drink Up Thee Cider]

Surely BE are just considering the sale of LGW slots? What the purchaser does with those slots remains to be seen. The slots are not paired with an origin/destination airport.


Fair point. Poorly expressed on my part. My point was that the slot sale may be to more than one airline and that Blue Islands are rumoured to be a second buyer.

Also agree that a slot is a slot is a slot and that any new owner could do what they like with them, but I don't see Blue Island starting an LGW service to anywhere other than GCI - hence my view that these are interesting times for GR. ;)

[kcockayne]

Surely this slot sale must be a desperate las throw of the dice by flybe.

No sooner do they introduce the embraer on the egjb to egjb route, then they sell the slots.

Doesn't indicate a lot of forward planning to me , rather a lurching from one traumatic move to the next.

The end is nigh.

[kcockayne]

Surely this slot sale must be a desperate last throw of the dice by flybe.

No sooner do they introduce the embraer on the egjb to egkk route, then they sell the slots.

Doesn't indicate a lot of forward planning to me , rather a lurching from one traumatic move to the next.

The end is nigh.

[Skipness One Echo]

The change of charging at one airport to the detriment of flybe is beyond their control. In those circumstances where profit is now marginal or beyond reach it is perfectly sensible to sell out and go elsewhere. It happened at LHR, it's happening at LGW.

Hardly flybe's fault and quite far from the end thank you Private Fraser.

[kcockayne]

I take your point & agree with it. But it's not just gat wick that flybe have a problem with. It's pretty much everything!
I don't necessarily believe that Armageddon is hovering, but it doesn't look good from where I'm standing.
The present review of operations is just the company's planned first phase. What will the second phase hold in store?

[davidjohnson6]

There has been talk as to how Flybe will go about selling their Gatwick slots. This would be done via a formal written contract, but the only requirements for a contract to be valid normally is that both parties are willing and that there is the exchange of something of value - slots in exchange for cash. Once these conditions are achieved, you're then into haggling between parties.

Does ACL or Gatwick permit slots to be sold with conditions, either formally or informally ? Could Flybe sell slots to Easyjet on the condition that Easyjet does not increase capacity on Gatwick-Jersey for the next 3 years and that the slots sold must be used for other routss ? Would such a contract be enforceable in court if absolutely necessary ? Or would airlines perhaps accept a gentleman's agreement over a 3 year period ?
If such an agreement could be reached, it may give Flybe time to set up operations at Stansted instead without being driven out of London entirely. Yes, the slot price woulf be lower, but pretty much everything has a price...

Separately, anyone know if the slots are being sold from October 2013 onwards or if the sale takes effect at March 2014 ?

[True Blue]

Is KE still returning on 2nd June to Icn? They have not yet loaded Lgw onto their site.

TB

[True Blue]

There was a full page report in the business section of The Tmes on Saturday on Norwegian. In it, the Chief Exe, Bjorn Kjos seems to indicate that they will start flights ex Lgw to the Far East starting with Bangkok. No firm start given.

TB

[adfly]

That would be an interesting move for Norwegian, I'd go as far to suggest that they would be the most appropriate airline to (eventually) offer a daily LGW-JFK route, as their semi low-cost positioning in the market could be an effective way to pull some of the economy/premium economy passengers from up the road!

[Skipness One Echo]

Korean is timetabled from late June as KE909 / 910 1945-2115 thrice weekly for July.
Regarding Norwegain Air Shuttle, if BA, VS and CO walked away from LGW-NYC, DY won't be any more succesful. Let's see how flying LN registered B787s with non European and contract flight deck and cabin crews works out first. LGW-BKK is already well served by Emirates over DXB and they won't sit back and let a newbie waltz in and steal those passengers. If DY do start BKK-LGW, then I might expect an A380 on the DXB run to kill it off.

[Suzeman]

Blue Islands don't want any FlyBe slots at LGW.

Here's the statement - don't think they will be going to LGW anytime soon!

Blue Islands statement on Gatwick slots - Business News | businesslife.co (http://www.businesslife.co/BusinessNews.aspx?id=blue-islands-statement-on-gatwick-slots)

[adfly]

It won't be easy for Norwegian to establish themselves in any long haul market, however I believe that their brand new aircraft, reasonable product and most importantly a low cost base in comparison to many long haul carriers could make them an appealing alternative to the norm. That is also why I feel they could make a better job of a JFK route than the other mentioned airlines in S1E's post. I'd say after BKK we could see HKT and possibly FLL introduced however these would ultimately rely on how the former performs.

[Ramper1]

Thomson are doing LGW -HKT (Phuket) direct in winter with their 787 so no reason why Norwegian can't do bkk

[LN-KGL]

Emirates will never fly direct flights to Bangkok from one London's airports, Norwegian will do that. The time difference looking at today's Emirates timetable seems to end up using 7 more hours traveling with Emirates compared with Nowegian (the shortest transfer times at DXB is 3:10 eastbound and 2:00 westbound).

The most probable Norwegian timetable for flights between LGW and BKK (local times):

Departure LGW 13:00
Arrival BKK 6:40 (next morning)
Duration 11:40

Departure BKK 09:00
Arrival LGW 16:00
Duration 13:00

Now let's look at what Emirates offer on their least time consuming combination:
Departure LGW 10:00
Arrival DXB 19:19:50
Departure DXB 23:00
Apprival BKK 08:20
Duration 16:20

Departure BKK 09:55
Arrival DXB 13:00
Departure DXB 15:00
Arrival LGW 19:30
Duration 15:35

The Norwegian (DU) timetable is based on the times and speeds used on timetables for OSL and ARN. You may wonder when you see arrival at 16:00 and departure at 13:00. Then I may continue with the send half of the timetable from LGW:

Departure LGW 17:30
Arrival JFK 20:00
Duration 7:30

Departure JFK 21:30
Arrival LGW 09:25
Duration 06:55

If Norwegian select to assign two B788 to cover BKK-LGW-JFK-LGW-BKK there will be daily flights to both BKK and JFK. At BKK and JFK the B788 will overlap with other company aircraft and an exchange of aircraft will be possible so that it can be flown to ARN for scheduled maintenance. The third B788 that is assigned for the FLL flights have a weekly one day stop at ARN (for scheduled maintenance and/or for exchange of aircraft).

[Skipness One Echo]

Emirates will never fly direct flights to Bangkok from one London's airports, Norwegian will do that.
I never said they would, I said they would react badly if DY entered the market. Let's give the Gatwick base a year and see how much money they're making before we start playing fantasy timetables eh? They still have no brand recognition on long haul and if they did enter LGW-JFK, what's the betting we'd see a spoiler response from BA?

The only people that this timetable would attract would be the super-price conscious, now I'm not saying there's not a market but entering LON-NYC, one of the most competitive markets on Earth AND aiming for the bargain basement is barmy. Branson himself said Virgin would have died in it's early years without Upper Class, premium travellers and getting into Heathrow. The only difference is DY are using *very* cheap non EU crew and brand new aircraft to chase the cheapest seats? No one has ever managed to do this, particularly not branded as "Norwegian Air Shuttle". Zero brand recognition, no premium service, no lounge access on one of the most premium centric routes on Earth. That's partly how BA killed Pan Am btw, they let PA fill their aircraft with Y travellers while BA poached all the high yield travellers. DY are going to need deep pockets and very cheap labour costs if they try this.

Do they have travel agent deals with the majors to block book seats in their plans?

[Calmcavok]

Further, where will the freight demand come from for DY? LCCs carry very little freight due to the fundamentals of the model, add the lack of interlining both for a LCC and at LGW, and that's killed the belly revenue.

Can never see low cost transatlantic on a city pair such as London-New York. In fact, cannot understand how low cost long-haul will ever work outside of IT.

[pabely]

Can't see how this will work, Air Asia tried far east, APD and no belly cargo will make this a cash burner....NYC has so much capacity and the savy flyer can get good deals from LHR on a choice of flights per hour.

[SealinkBF]

Didn't O'Leary say that for the distance, lowest LON-NYC Y fares are already "low cost" and he probably couldn't do it for less.

(I think it was before the £40 boarding card charges et al) ;-)

[LN-KGL]

BKK and NYC are unserved destinations from UK's second largest airport and it's this void Norwegian may want to fill. Regarding cargo, this press release may be of interest:
Newsdesk - Norwegian (http://media.norwegian.com/en/#/pressrelease/view/norwegian-establishes-a-new-cargo-company-858323)

Nothing is written in stone yet; Norwegian may find better business cases for aircraft number 4, 5, 6 and 7 inbound in 2014. Some answers we'll get this autumn.

[True Blue]

I sent KE an email asking them when Lgw flights would be available for booking via their site. They replied this morning that they have no plans to operate to Lgw this year. Strange.

TB

[Tigger4Me]

Does anyone know what the queues are like through North Terminal Security around 08:30 to 09:30 on a Friday morning please?

[no sponsor]

Low cost long haul doesn't work. Air Asia tried it first out of STN, then LGW. Oasis tried it and went bust. Even Hong Kong airlines with their all business class was a failure. BA have given up offering first class on a 744 from LHR-BKK due to the lack of yields, and are moving to a 3-class 772. BKK just doesn't attract the high paying passenger like HKG or SIN.

There's no way BA, Virgin, AA and United will let Norwegian be a success on the most lucrative route in the world. Remember AA starting their US service out of STN when EOS started flying? As soon as EOS went under, AA pulled out of STN.

Unless they can fill the front cabin with people paying £5k a ticket, there's no money in it.

[canberra97]

Does anyone know what date Pier 1 will finally close or if it has already?

The Gatwick Airport website doesnt give much information regarding this and when the demolition of Pier 1 commences, I know June was mentioned but if anyone can confirm this it would be appreciated.

[Skipness One Echo]

It has already closed but is still intact as of last weekend.

[737James]

Just a bit of a heads up a couple of Neos aircraft will be operating from Knock Ireland to Gatwick on Fri 31st May these are charters for Voyages of Discovery cruise passengers. I believe it will be one 767-300 and a 737-800

[LGS6753]

Worst airports for flight delays revealed (http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?c=setreg&region=2&m_id=s~_rvY!s~m&w_id=9002&news_id=2006632)

[IrishFlyer2013]

Pier 1 is being demolised today. I've read else where that it will re open for Summer 2015.

http://gatwickairport.tumblr.com/post/52048892884/pier-1-demolition-hails-new-era-for-london-gatwick

[iwak]

Is that the pier where flybe operate from?

[IrishFlyer2013]

Is that the pier where flybe operate from?

Yes, all small a/c operate from Pier 1 at Gatwick.

[jijpc]

But of course they won't be back as they are leaving before it re-opens!

[Skipness One Echo]

So how many gates will this new Pier One have?

[tubby linton]

There is a white A330 outside the Virgin hangar with a raw metal section around the doors two area. Has the aircraft been repaired or modified?

[canberra97]

SKIPNESS

Regarding LGW I am really surprised your asking questions rather then giving full answers as your accustomed too.

The new Pier 1 will have 5 gates with airbridges, the LGW website has for a while now shown full details plus pictures showing the new pier.

[Surreyman]

So fewer gates than the old pier, but all will be of a larger size suitable for 'International & Domestic', all with air-bridges.
Can't help reflecting that Flybes exit is well timed, as they seemed to mainly use the old pier 1, which had a number of small gates without air bridges.
I have used the old pier 1 and I think i am right in saying that the largest aircraft using it was A320/B737-800? not sure if the size constraints were just the Gate lounges or the actual ramp area?
i assume the 5 new gates can take wide-bodies?

[Surreyman]

At the risk of opening up an old wound, what are the practicalities (or otherwise) of concentrating all of easyjets operation at one terminal?
Obviously this could only take place by moving some other airlines.
If Virgin were to move to the North terminal, could all of easyjets check-in be handled in the A check in zone?
The soon to be Flybe slots add another complication.
As SLF, I really dislike the split terminal set up, I believe the staff hate it too.

[adfly]

I would imagine the gates would all be narrowbody ones, there are plenty of large Widebody gates on the north side of Pier 2 and all of Pier 3, as well as some for 'smaller' ones on the south side of Pier 2 (767, A300, A310).

I guess EZY can move all of their domestics southwards once the Pier is ready, although in the pdf by LGW they stated that for EZY to fit into one terminal DY, ZB, TCX and EI would all have to move northwards. I assume VS are ok down South as by the time their A/C start to arrive their are normally a few gates free from departing aircraft.

[FRatSTN]

But EasyJet has generally been shifting traffic away from the South Terminal. About 5 or 6 years ago it was all South Terminal but now the North Terminal I beleive handles the most EasyJet flights (perhaps since it's newer and more modern/better suits EZY's strategy nowadays? Or to muscle in on BA's territory?)

Could EZY eventually be all North Terminal? Either way, the way it seems to be going, there could be a chance for EZY to be the sole operator from one terminal and every other airline from the other! A bit like IAG at Terminal 5?Providing they take all 25 Flybe Gatwick slots, could they be basing close to 60 aircraft next summer and beyond?

[TSR2]

As SLF, I really dislike the split terminal set up

Does it really matter to SLF providing they know which terminal to go to.

[adfly]

The plan written by LGW seemed to suggest that if EZY were to move to one terminal then it would be the south, plus I don't think BA would let them move North at their expense, as they have fairly recently upgraded some of their facilities there (New check-in area etc).

[Surreyman]

Quote:
As SLF, I really dislike the split terminal set up


"Does it really matter to SLF providing they know which terminal to go to".

Most definitely, I have several times experienced an inbound flight due at North Terminal, going to South terminal and then having to be bussed back to North Terminal, due presumably, to the aircrafts next planned flight being from South.
My time to exit the airport having effectively been doubled, plus the horror of the transfer bus!

[Teaboy24]

It happened three times to myself during last year..

First time was bussed across ramp from North to South Terminal.

Second time we arrived, not a word said before disembarking. Quite a few confused passengers once in Terminal.

Third time, was advised by crew and was left to passengers to find their own way over to South Terminal. Appears they do not do bussing between terminals anymore.

Am getting used to it now, but irrated a lot of other passengers.

Agree, use of one Terminal would make life easier.

[Skipness One Echo]

Regarding LGW I am really surprised your asking questions rather then giving full answers as your accustomed too.
It's how you learn... Last time I got off Pier 1 at Gate 5 there was a piece of equipment at the top of the bridge labelled BAC111 use :)

EZY have a subset of arrivals at each terminal which arrive at the opposite one so I assume not all are bussed and some are allowed to deplane at the "wrong" terminal. There's a FIDS screen especially in arrivals for meeters and greeters to let them know.

The original (rough) plan was long haul at North and (mainly) loco and charters at the South, with Virgin staying put due to the Clubhouse. The rather spectacular rise and rise of easyJet has meant that they are the exception. I suspect they'll remain split for the foreseeable future, the game changer might be BA getting a third runway at LHR but that's not still a mid term option.

[Ramper1]

Ezy will move solely to the south in 2015 when the baggage system has Ben upgraded and the terminal is finished. The only reason they are in 2 terminals just now is that the baggage system is not good enough to cope with all the flights, and the loss of 10 or so gates at the south from the old pier.


As for not bussing anymore, This is correct.....the aircraft will arrive at whatever terminal of the next flight and the mono rail connects both terminals so there is no need for bussing. The bussing airside tool much much longer that the new system of deplaning at the different terminal, By up to 45 mins quicker!!!!!

[davidjohnson6]

What would Monarch, Norwegian and Thomas Cook gain from moving to the North terminal ? Is cash being waved at them in return for the disruption involved or are they just going to be forcibly evicted from South terminal ?

Incurring operational grief just to help a competitor doesn't seem a particularly good way of improving a firm's profits...

[Finbarr]

Sad to see Pier 1 at LGW being demolished. Many happy memories of BCAL, DAN, Air Europe etc operating from this pier.

The 'jetways' were a bit unique in that they only moved in and out and not from side to side. The 'stop' system was also a bit odd - a mirror allowed the Captain to see his nosewheel and to line it up with the appropriate line painted on the Tarmac.

I remember arriving there one very humid night - a few knots of 'breeze' would have allowed fog to form. The 'mirror' was obscured by 'dew' - something not apparent till the appropriate line had been crossed! Normally this would not have been much of a problem if the 'finger' had been able to have moved laterally but it wasn't and much embarrassment was caused awaiting a pushback crew (about 30 minutes) to push the aircraft back about a foot so the finger could be lined up with the door. Red faces all round!

[FRatSTN]

North Terminal is much nicer in my opinion. South is where the railway station is so that is good for EZY but I would have thought that is less of an importance to TCX and ZB since they only have leisure passengers who are much less likely to travel by rail or need to commute into central London.

I don't think it would take much to get TCX and ZB to move North along with Thomson (why did they move by the way?) Perhaps VS should go North anyway along with the majority of long haul traffic at Gatwick. I can definitely see EZY at just one terminal in the future, it certainly brings no benefit by splitting services between both!

[adfly]

Are there enough gates to handle that many widebodys at roughly the same time though? I count something along the lines of 8/9 BA 777's, an EK 777, 2/3 TOM 767/787's, 1/2 TCX 332's, a MON 332 plus 1-3 of Air China, Vietnam and Caribbean Airlines. Adding VS to this (think its 5 744's and 1 333 currently) seems like a bit of an overload!

[Skipness One Echo]

Ezy will move solely to the south in 2015
There will
Pier 1 - 5
Pier 2 - 20
Pier 3 (Sat) - 14

Giving 39 stands in all if EZY get them all. Isn't there 50 odd in the first wave?
Also given VS won't be moving that might be interesting.
I count something along the lines of 8/9 BA 777's, an EK 777, 2/3 TOM 767/787's, 1/2 TCX 332's, a MON 332 plus 1-3 of Air China, Vietnam and Caribbean Airlines. Adding VS to this (think its 5 744's and 1 333 currently) seems like a bit of an overload!

There's no more than 6 BA B772s in at once, and then of course I assume Monarch short haul will be moved across too. Not sure this is practical as then South stands empty until the EZY first wave returns? Hardly optimal if one is empty and North is heaving. We shall see.

[adfly]

It seems BA have recently moved one of the ex BMI A320's to LGW, apparently permanently. This is due to it being the only one which does not support the containerised baggage system used at T5. It is configured with 168 seats so it should come in handy on the busier routes especially during the peak months!

[Seljuk22]

DY will use B787 on OSL-LGW from 4th July to 4th August on DY1310/1311 but only every Thursday and every Sunday.

[True Blue]

Since the announcement by DY of their new base at Lgw, many have speculated that it would be the next EI, a failure. I have been keeping a watch on how they might be doing at Lgw and have come to an opinion that they might be handling things better than EI did. At this stage I must state I have no knowlege of their ops or most importantly, yields. My reasons are:
1. They already had a reasonably large operation at Lgw from Scandanavia. That will have been already driving a lot of traffic to their sites.
2. They increased frequency to Stockholm, Oslo and Helsinki. Many of those flights, especially to Stockholm, are regularly sold out. I would not be surprised if they increased Stockholm further in the future. This will be giving the Lgw base a foundation that EI was never able to do.
3. Looking at the new routes, on several of those routes, flights are often sold out. For this month, Malaga, Barcelona and Nice are very good examples of that. So pax travelling to those destinations are finding DY as an option. I fully understand that they may have offered very keen fares to drive traffic.
4. DY, unlike EI, has not gone for multiple daily flights to the new destinations. They have gone for 3/4 flights a week, which seems to be working. This will limit losses but allow them to build frequency in the future as brand awareness increases.
5. I wondered if the public would think of DY as an option when going to the med, but they seem to be doing so in good numbers. This would have been their biggest challenge.
6. In a capitalist economy, there will always be new entrants coming in at the bottom, starting small but growing and eventually posing a challenge to the bigger/older operators. For that reason, it might be best not to write them off too quick as at some point, both Lgw and a new entrant there may effect a change that will effect other airlines and us.

Does anyone have close knowledge of how they are doing?

TB

[Dropline]

It's DY not DK.

[LNIDA]

I think your assessment is reasonably accurate, the load factors on the new routes to the Med & Gran Canaria have been very impressive and as you say often sold out and we have yet to hit peak UK summer travel period, the number of based aircraft increases from 3 to 4 from July into August, but based aircraft are only part of the picture due to the large number of flights that start elsewhere including AGP/ALC/GCI.

The surprise routes have been some of the Northern Norway routes like Tromso, until you factor in that it only takes a little longer to fly to LGW than OSL and London is cheap, very cheap when compared to OSL and this route will now operate year round.

It won't fail as a base, in part because as you pointed out it already had a good volume of scandic routes, customer feed back is excellent, it seems a combination of allocated seating, new aircraft, free wifi and very few delays or cancellations together with very aggressive pricing are getting bums on seats from where yield management can start to come into play, only gripes i have heard are that some flight timings could be better and the on board food is a little pricey.

Just who they are taking business off remains to be seen, the growth on OSL & ARN suggests leakage from LHR, the BA turn back en route to OSL (engine cowls unlatched) had only 75 pax on board

[LN-KGL]

Well, if we look at the Nordic destinations Norwegian is alone to serve, the growth in May was over 48% compared with the same month last year - this according to CAA provisional numbers (released today). Counted in passengers, the growth to these 9 destinations was 37 122 with a total passenger number of 113 887 in May. The two destinations shared with easyjet (BGO and CPH) had a growth of only 14% (+8 139 passenger). I don't know which of these two carriers that contributed to this lower growth, but I know easyJet as a whole grew with only 3.4% in May. Of the four Nordic countries, Denmark is without doubt the country with the poorest performance. Finland and HEL on the other hand had a 101% growth from last year, while LHR-HEL gained only 1%.

[Bagso]

Lnlda

Good point without trivialising the incident every time you hear the pax figures the planes seem half empty.

[LNIDA]

Just voted best loco airline in Europe by Skytrax at paris Air show today

This is the trip advisor off the airline world and can only do good

Where are the slots at LGW going to come from given Easy have just agreed £20m for a block of Flybe slots, i guess LGW have offered NAS a deal on slots for their routes for 2013/14

[bunatern]

air zimbabwe say they will restart LGW twice a week starting 15th nov with 767-200 time will tell.
philippine airlines have recently established a business office in west sussex and with a annoucement due on 10th july by the eu on weather the eu ban will be lifted in some form or another,from what i have been told philippine airlines r confident the ban will be lifted and have made a slot application to LGW mainly due to the fact no suitable slots at LHR.

[canberra97]

flyboystan

The full schedule is now available on the Air Zimbabwe website, twice weekly flights by their Boeing 767 aircraft starting 15th November 2013.

Wed/Sun UM722 Harare 09.00 London Gatwick 18.30

Mon/Thur UM725 London Gatwick 19.30 Harare 06.30+

I think Philippine Airlines will announce a return to London Gatwick as soon as the EU ban has been lifted, after all they have to fly those shiny new Boeing 777-300 aircraft somewhere and they have been quite open about the fact that they intend to reopen European flights as soon as possible once the ban has been lifted.

Avianca have previously stated in the past they are waiting for suitable take off and landing slots at Heathrow but they have been saying that for at least the last 5 years and many airlines have acquired slots at Heathrow in that time so perhaps they might decide to resume flights from Gatwick instead of Heathrow especially as they have new Boeing 787 aircraft on order and due for delivery from early 2014 and I am sure they could obtain suitable slots at Gatwick for a Bogota service.

Gatwick is not the airport it was and airlines especially long haul airlines are starting to realise this so hopefully Gatwick will see new long haul routes open up becuase of it.

What Gatwick needs is a New York connection again and perhaps with the Delta/Virgin Atlantic JV it may be possible in the future to perhaps move one of the Heathrow to Newark flights to Gatwick and those Heathrow slots could then be used by Delta for a new route from Heathow to Salt Lake City, a destination they have recently announced the intention to fly to at some point.

[Skipness One Echo]

What Gatwick needs is a New York connection again and perhaps with the Delta/Virgin Atlantic JV it may be possible in the future to perhaps move one of the Heathrow to Newark flights to Gatwick and those Heathrow slots could then be used by Delta for a new route from Heathow to Salt Lake City
It's not going to happen. LGW is far too close to LHR for New York to be viable. From Delta's perspective, they looked at LGW/LHR-JFK/ATL numbers when they flew both and the upshot was both are now entirely at LHR. As the JV with VS grows, that focus on LHR will only grow. It is not competitve to move drop a key business route demanding *more* frequency to be competitive on LHR-NYC, to open up a new more niche route. I believe LHR-SEA is in the works, but not at the expense of a JFK rotation.

[LNIDA]

a NAS Dreamliner for LGW is planned for 2014 i hear and JFK is A most likely route,a lot connecting (NAS) traffic runs through London. Unlike other Lo Co they are not just point to point. Check the NAS web site for LGW it show destination other than direct routing

[adfly]

If anyone takes up LGW-JFK it will probably be one that does not currently fly the route from LHR, I would also say Norwegian are the most likely to have a go.

[Skipness One Echo]

a NAS Dreamliner for LGW is planned for 2014 i hear and JFK is A most likely route,a lot connecting (NAS) traffic runs through London
What sort of connections through LGW are currently popular? I am genuinely interested. As to LGW-JFK, I suspect they will launch with a fanfare as the next big thing, though no one's managed to make a success of it since Virgin.

For reasons that were covered by several of us a few pages back, I have little doubt they'd get sandwiched between premium (which uses LHR) and discounted (which uses LHR on a cross subsidy from all that premium!). I have little doubt they'd love to try....as to making it succesful, well their cost base is low because the B787 crews are coming from where again? Someone remind me....

[EI-BUD]

If DY are to operate LGW US routes eg NYC, their approach at LGW to date makes sense. The development of sun routes eg AGP etc provide a good route to increased utilisation outside of say a daily transatlantic crossing. Similar to what EI do at DUB, 330 arrives from JFK and them goes down to AGP and back before the next trip west across the pond.

This could make the long haul flying program more cost effective and potentially reduce seat costs. Best of luck to them.

The arguement is well articulated about airlines preferring LHR over LGW on US routes . However, with restricted slot levels one of the US carriers may like to move say 1 daily service and free up a slot for a new US route that would develop more profitably at LHR eg Salt Lake City while at the same time offering a greater number of London Gateways on NYC route...

[LNIDA]

Connections vary, but its not unusual to have 20-30 pax for LPA from LGW who travelled in the night before from across the next work, NAS see little risk in this due to their exceptional on time performance, this confidence regularly allows them to position crews from one base to another to operate a flight within 90 minutes of STA and this planned not reactionary.

NAS accept that from time to time it will go wrong and if it does no if's or but's they put them up in a hotel.

With regards to JFK well lets see, but the growth on inter Scandinavian into LGW has taken business from SAS & BA at LHR and a lot of these are suits.

People only a few months were ready to paint this (NAS) as Aer Lingus V2 but if the numbers are anything to go i think they are very much here for the long haul in every sense of the word.

[j636]

Swiss add 3 weekly service to Geneva from 14 December to 8 March.

[LNIDA]

Norwegian publish their Q2 earnings report this morning, lots of positive stuff, but importantly showing 85% average load factor on LGW-MED routes (includes LPA) for 2nd quarter. it also gives Norwegian a 7% market share of all LGW traffic.

[c52]

Come 2019, there will be no legal agreement preventing simultaneous use of the two runways.

With them being so close together, would it be permitted to use both at once to any degree at all? (centre to centre is 0.12 miles, measured on Google Earth).

[Skipness One Echo]

Nope, they're much, much too close. 26R/08L is known as the "emergency" runway with good reason. When that's in use, even use of the parallel taxiway and some nearby stands are out of use, or need to be parked nose out.

[DaveReidUK]

Come 2019, there will be no legal agreement preventing simultaneous use of the two runways.You're getting confused.

2019 is the date that marks the end of the moratorium on building a new runway at Gatwick, nothing to do with use of the existing emergency runway.

[c52]

You're right, I hadn't realised that.

[yotty]

Isn't the minimum distance between runways 750m to operate each of them separately? :confused:

[tubby linton]

What is the structure being built next to the fire station?

[Fenders]

New airfield Ops.

[J-Guy]

British Airways is to increase flights between Gatwick and Jersey from summer 2014, re-instating the later evening flight that was dropped in March.

This follows Flybe’s announcement that it will exit the route from March 2014and will mean British Airways once again flies six daily flights to Jersey. The timings of flights have also been improved.

A small bit of news for Gatwick but an important and welcome move for Jersey nonetheless. I know the loss of the later evening flight has caused frustration locally, including for me, as has the inconsistent daily timetable.

[leisurelad]

Been a few delays today with airline code RLX ... never heard of it and can't find any info as to who they are ... anyone know.

Thanks

[SilentHandover]

RLX is Go2Sky (OM-GTA), they have been operating for Small Planet Polska.
(Info from John Dyer's blog)

[DaveReidUK]

Gatwick's submission last week to the Airports Commission:

http://www.gatwickairport.com/Documents/business_and_community/R2/Gatwick_Airport_Proposals_for_additional_longterm_runway_cap acity19Jul2013.pdf

[Blink182]

So, What would happen to the Belgrano ?

[Fairdealfrank]

Interesting document, there was one word that cropped up a great deal in it: "Heathrow".

Their idea of one of the airline alliances shifting from LHR to LGW en masse, clearly isn't going to happen.

The very-very-wide-spaced option for a second parallel rwy is reminiscent of AMS.

It's a fair case if it was intended to be as well LHR expansion, but not convinced that it works instead of LHR expansion.

[yotty]

The Belgrano being mainly made of glass and steel could be dismantled and rebuilt elsewhere. Gatwick is still stuck with the same problem of having to cross a live runway to get to the southernmost!:rolleyes:

[DaveReidUK]

Gatwick is still stuck with the same problem of having to cross a live runway to get to the southernmost!Not necessarily.

The schematic layouts in the proposal don't show any taxiways, but they do show the airport boundaries being extended to both the east and west as well as to the south.

So it's quite possible that an end-around taxiway could be provided at either or both ends of the current 08/26 to obviate the need for runway crossings.

[LN-KGL]

You just need to take a closer look at the front cover of the submission. Behind the Beehive and the parking area you will see the new south terminal and between and along the runways you will also a number of satellite piers with access to both runways without crossing them. I presume this artistic illustration shows the third option (largerst separation between the runways).

[DaveReidUK]

I presume this artistic illustration shows the third optionI believe so, although we should bear in mind that it is indeed only an artist's impression.

The proposal states that:

"We are not yet in a position to conclude the precise design of such a new runway. Considerations include the exact length of the runway, how it would be operated and how the related infrastructure, such as new taxiways, aprons and passenger terminal and surface access connections would be provided."

And I think I'm right in saying that the artist has drawn the taxiway in the foreground too close to the 26 threshold to be usable as an end-around.

[CaptJ]

Fairdealfrank.
I'm not sure you can make such a statement about there being no chance of an alliance shifting.
Not when Mr Walsh threatened exactly that a few weeks ago.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Fairdealfrank.
I'm not sure you can make such a statement about there being no chance of an alliance shifting.
Not when Mr Walsh threatened exactly that a few weeks ago."

What they say and what they do are often different.

Remain unconvinced that any of the carriers at LHR would give up on the wealth of connections and interlining/through-ticketing opportunities and the premium business available LHR and nowhere else in the UK. Could only envisaging it happening in the case of a carrier in such dire straits that it has to sell/lease out its LHR slots to survive.

Having paid millions for scarce LHR slots, imagine that many carriers would be loathe to give them up or lease them out to the competition.

The movement tends to be the other way, from LGW to LHR (there's plenty of evidence and examples of this!), so don't see the reverse happening. Don't envisage a carrier doing it, let alone an entire alliance.

Could be completely wrong of course, but the balance of probability must be against.....

[nigel osborne]

CaptJ,

One thing to threateN to move another to do it.

Why would they move ,already proved that US airlines for example don't want LGW as they have all fled to LHR driven by the fact Business passengers want to fly from LHR and not commute to LGW..

Long Haul, LGW is mostly used for leisure routes and by airlines that can't get slots into LHR.

Would an alliance risk loosing front end business passengers to other alliances still using t LHR by moving to LGW.they wouldn't get many back.

Nigel

[LN-KGL]

nigel, LGW emphasises that today (2012 numbers) only a bit over 17 million of the passengers flying to London airports are transfer passengers; the rest (118 million) are O&D passengers. With such a vast majority terminating only the best ground transport counts to get to the final destination.

[Skipness One Echo]

Would an alliance risk loosing front end business passengers to other alliances still using t LHR by moving to LGW.they wouldn't get many back.
STAR have their own multi billion pound exclusive and brand new T2 at LHR opening soon so unlikely... Skyteam have been accomodated well in a newly refurbished T4 and Oneworld are BA's main partner. What is the commercial upside of walking away from LHR to join easyJet and Thomson at Gatters?
I'm not sure you can make such a statement about there being no chance of an alliance shifting.
Not when Mr Walsh threatened exactly that a few weeks ago.
Are BA moving to Gatwick? Seriously? Or just Iberia :)? My bad....

The key issue that other airports with a "constellation" of airports don't have a dominant succesful world hub. The only winners in forcing an alliance out of Heathrow would be the lawyers, Lufthansa even suspended LGW-FRA for the winter, as traffic prefers LHR in that market.

[DaveReidUK]

Some rather strange logic in the Executive Summary:

"Transfer passengers represent only 13% of passengers using London’s airports. The number of routes which supporters of mega hubs argue can be facilitated only with transferring passengers is overstated."

So, if transfer traffic is relatively unimportant, why do airlines fight tooth and nail to get into Heathrow when they could save a fortune on user charges by flying to Gatwick instead ?

[LGS6753]

Dave -

Because LHR is better situated within the UK.

Just take a look at the geography. Gatwick road and rail connections are virtually non-existent east-west. Go south 30 miles and you're in the sea. Go north and you hit Congestion Central.

From LHR to the west there is a good motorway to Reading, Swindon, Bristol, Exeter, Cardiff, etc. To the southwest there is good motorway into Surrey, Hampshire, Southampton, etc. Northwest is Chilterns, Oxford, Birmingham by quiet motorway. Within 20 miles north you are on the M1 towards Watford, Luton, MK, Northampton etc. Rail links into Central London are many and quick, and offer a wide variety of destinations.

Forget the hubbing and spoking - it's location, location, location.

[racedo]

Down that way today and drove along A23 on way to Crawley.

Nestle will be p***** off as they just moved into City Place which figure won't exist.

Road Alignment not much of an issue as mostly farmland on left and most of industries that were using area up to Ibis Hotel on RHS at Lowfield Heath have gone via recession or because Land was bought up at Auction a few years ago.

They will straighten A23 to along where Ibis is with no trouble.

Sadly Flight Tavern will cease to exist, food average but spent more than a few evenings and afternoons there waiting for people.

Motorway will have better exit which not such a bad idea and create thousands of jobs but then again as Crawley seems to be always close to full employment that is an interesting equation.

Based on initial designs I wonder whether its a satellite terminal or a full blown new terminal utilising both runways.

It will be interesting to see.

[DaveReidUK]

Forget the hubbing and spoking - it's location, location, location.OK, there's no disputing that LHR's surface transport links are much better than Gatwick's.

But that's rather different from saying that transfer traffic is irrelevant to the majority of airlines serving Heathrow. It clearly isn't.

[TurboTomato]

Watching this with interest as my office is within the new 'Safeguarded boundary'...

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "nigel, LGW emphasises that today (2012 numbers) only a bit over 17 million of the passengers flying to London airports are transfer passengers; the rest (118 million) are O&D passengers. With such a vast majority terminating only the best ground transport counts to get to the final destination."

The presence of transfer pax make normally unviable routes profitable, adding to the number of destinations available from a particular airport, and increasing choice and developing new business.

The number of transfer pax is immaterial, it only has to be sufficient to provide these additional routes.

Quote: "Watching this with interest as my office is within the new 'Safeguarded boundary'..."

Interesting that there's a safeguarded boundary at LGW! Judging by the distance of some of the rwy options from the existing rwy, it must be one hell of a large area!

Was it established before 1979?

Shame there was never one established at LHR back in the day (1950s).

[adfly]

TAP look to be increasing LGW-LIS from 5 to 11 weekly for the winter meaning they will operate the following:

OPO - 14 weekly
LIS - 11 weekly
FNC - 7 weekly (Summer only)

All should be on a mix of A319/A320.

[Tigger4Me]

Thanks for the heads up adfly. Any idea when the extra services LIS/LGW will start?

[adfly]

28th October according to the LGW timetable.

[DaveReidUK]

Interesting that there's a safeguarded boundary at LGW! Judging by the distance of some of the rwy options from the existing rwy, it must be one hell of a large area!

Was it established before 1979?From the Gatwick submission (see link above):

"The [2003 Air Transport White Paper] concluded that additional capacity at Gatwick would be very attractive to passengers, was supported by a strong economic case and that a new runway at Gatwick should be kept available as an option. That policy, which remains in place today, led to the formal safeguarding of over 550 hectares of land to the south of the airport and north of the town of Crawley as shown on Figure 1."

[yotty]

Excellent summary racedo, how do you think the Crawley North West Bypass will fit into the equation? And also how will the new runway fit in with the already approved North East Sector Development? http://www.crawley.gov.uk/pw/web/int158472

[Tigger4Me]

28th October according to the LGW timetable.

Thanks adfly.

[TurboTomato]

Interesting that there's a safeguarded boundary at LGW! Judging by the distance of some of the rwy options from the existing rwy, it must be one hell of a large area!

Was it established before 1979?

Yes well before then - part of the offices are an old building that was built c1900 and used as a school at one time. Modern glass bits have been added, presumably after 1979. But we are right on the eastern edge of the boundary.

[anothertyke]

.... the oracle at delphi in 2015 says no more capacity at LHR in the forseeable future but we'll go for a second runway at LGW.

So the three alliances are there at Heathrow running at 99% of capacity busily rebalancing their operations in a growth environment. Meanwhile there's quite a lot of decent quality capacity going at Gatwick. The last thing the supermarket industry likes to do is leave space for market entry. That scenario would concentrate quite a few minds in the alliances. I agree people don't always do what they say they would do, especially when what they say is intended to influence the outcome rather than respond to a decision.

[Skipness One Echo]

So the three alliances are there at Heathrow running at 99% of capacity busily rebalancing their operations in a growth environment. Meanwhile there's quite a lot of decent quality capacity going at Gatwick. The last thing the supermarket industry likes to do is leave space for market entry. That scenario would concentrate quite a few minds in the alliances. I agree people don't always do what they say they would do, especially when what they say is intended to influence the outcome rather than respond to a decision.
26th Jul 2013 09:23
Your analysis is flawed. Any one alliance moving would lose a competitve edge overnight as this particular market has shown a preference for LHR, every analysis of customer behaviour and spending patterns shows this. It's not exactly like a supermarket as this has already happened. BA downsized massively at LGW and market share was sacrificed to EZY. BA's profits ROSE.

[nigel osborne]

Hearing that Garuda have closed reservations for their forthcoming Gatwick service, you can no longer book it.

Anyone know whether they are just tweaking the schedule and will reopen it ?

Nigel

[davidjohnson6]

anothertyke - supermarkets are also capable of landbanking (and the local property firms in any area will presumably have a good idea as to who controls what major pieces of land), but London airport slots are use-it-or-lose-it

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Just supposing
.... the oracle at delphi in 2015 says no more capacity at LHR in the forseeable future but we'll go for a second runway at LGW.

So the three alliances are there at Heathrow running at 99% of capacity busily rebalancing their operations in a growth environment. Meanwhile there's quite a lot of decent quality capacity going at Gatwick. The last thing the supermarket industry likes to do is leave space for market entry. That scenario would concentrate quite a few minds in the alliances. I agree people don't always do what they say they would do, especially when what they say is intended to influence the outcome rather than respond to a decision."

That would be the same as the "do nothing" option as far as LHR is concerned. and a disaster for the UK.

Under your scenario, the three alliances (and others) would be unable to expand at LHR. What makes you think one or more would up-sticks from LHR and automatically shift to a 2-rwy LGW?

You need to consider the strong possibility that the alliances (and others)could well find:
(1) plenty of premium business;
(2) sufficient connectivity and interlining/through-ticketing opportunities; PLUS
(3) plenty of capacity

at LHR's competitor airports: AMS, CDG and FRA, and may well choose to expand there instead. That is the danger.

Think this wrong? It's been happening for years!

A 2-rwy LGW can only offer (3) above, as can BHX, GLA, MAN, etc.. It's unsatisfactory for BHX, GLA and MAN, but it is an unpleasant fact of life.

[Facelookbovvered]

not sure on your conclusion re LGW yes would agree re BHX MAN, but a lot suit traffic at LGW, but hub and spoke traffic is of course important, but you can get just about anywhere in Europe with high daily frequency between the likes of Easyjet & Norwegian so more international traffic is bound to follow

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "FD Frank
not sure on your conclusion re LGW yes would agree re BHX MAN, but a lot suit traffic at LGW, but hub and spoke traffic is of course important, but you can get just about anywhere in Europe with high daily frequency between the likes of Easyjet & Norwegian so more international traffic is bound to follow"

Agreed, Facelookbovvered, but interline/through-ticketing options are not available with the likes of DY and U2, so it's not very convenient for connecting pax. Their business model is completely different.

Also agree that LGW is convenient for some, and that it's situated in a relatively wealthy area, but is there enough premium business? These pax are supremely important to longhaul carriers - they provide the profits. Economy pax are the icing on the cake.

Don't doubt for a minute that LGW would expand its point-to-point business with a second rwy, possibly attracting traffic from LTN and STN, but as hub for one or more alliances? - seems highly unlikely.

[Charley B]

BA A380 will be here today (eta 13.50) when it arrives from Shannon
It will depart at 20.00 back to LHR
Lets just hope the rain has stopped by then!

[LadyL2013]

I notice there is a DL arriving and departing to KLAS and KMCO today. Is this a one off? I thought no US carriers flew LGW anymore?

[BCALBOY]

Are you sure this isn't DL code sharing on VS metal ?

[DaveReidUK]

DL4394 LGW-LAS = VS043
DL4408 LGW-MCO = VS027

Both daily scheduled flights.

[LadyL2013]

Ah. Didn't think of that! Silly me!

[pc.]

"BA A380 will be here today (eta 13.50) when it arrives from Shannon"

Thanks for the info Charley B :)

Unfortunately I've only just read it.

Looking at the playback on flightradar24 I would have seen her coming from the west due south of my town of East Grinstead then turning north just past Crowborough.

So it looks like Emirates, Lufthansa and now BA have visited Gatwick, be good if an airline would start operating a scheduled service now that the facilities are ready.
But can't see that being Air Zimbabwe somehow?
"Air Zimbabwe: Will have A380 soon (http://www.pprune.org/african-aviation/516903-air-zimbabwe-will-have-a380-soon.html)..."

PC.

[Charley B]

pc
What a shame!

Was great to see even with the low cloud:(

Air Zimbabwe will never happen( I thinkthe GAS blog recently said that if they do come back it will be a 767!!

[yotty]

I was lucky enough to walk round and go inside LEA yesterday. Pretty awesome from the outside! The cabin guys have done a great job inside as well. The cockpit reminds me of the Tristar very spacious. I don't expect we will see it at LGW for quite a while though. :sad:

[Musket90]

pc.

I believe the Singapore has also visited on diversion.

[Charley B]

The Singapore airlines DID visit on a Sunday evening a couple of summers ago(when a fire alarm went off in the LHR tower!)
I just looked happened to look out the window just at the right time that night( i had missed all the others!)

[pc.]

"I was lucky enough to walk round...."

Yotty you are making me jealous, I'd have been happy if I'd seen her as a dot in the distance coming in the other day..... well a big dot maybe.

Still at least I didn't miss another A380 this week, that would have been even more disappointing.

As Charley B mentioned Singapore A380 on diversion (http://www.pistonheads.com/GASSING/topic.asp?h=0&t=570163&r=8861646&hm=67452) in August 2008 (http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-338666.html).

It must be very disappointing for Gatwick to have invested in the infrastructure to handle A380's with no signs of a schedule service coming.

Any news on visiting A380's is greatly appreciated. :)

pc.

[cornishsimon]

I dont think it will be long until we see EK sent the A380 to LGW.

They have lots of them on order and they must be running out of airports to send them too !


cs

[Charley B]

pc
I will try and let you know earlier next time!!
I'm sure it wont be long before EK send one here...all their flights out of here are packed!
We nearly had one a couple of weeks ago...EK 3 was on the LGW arrivals board for 18.30 the night of the ET 787 fire at LHR but sadly LHR opened again just after 18.00 and in there it went:(

[yotty]

Agree with cornishsimon and Charley B I don't think it'll be long before Emirates operate them at LGW. I need to have a chat with the caterers, they always seem to know whats happening! :ok:

[cornishsimon]

Well they have got to send those 50 odd A380s on order somewhere !


cs

[PhilW1981]

Very few Emirates A380's going spare until 2014 as all new arrivals are covering for existing airframes getting the wing fix.

[Skipness One Echo]

The only medium term prospect for LGW and the A380 is Emirates. BA won't base any and Virgin won't be taking any. Having said that, I suspect LGW will ve upgauged sooner rather than later.

[canberra97]

According to sources such as CE Aviation.

Philippine Airlines have announced plans to resume flights to the UK on the Manila to London Gatwick route starting 01st December 2013.

Former Iberia Airbus A340-300 will initially be used and later the carriers brand new Boeing 777-300 will fly the route.

Good news for LGW on getting yet another far eastern carrier to serve the airport, the airports portfolio of far eastern carriers looks quite impressive now with the addition of Philippine Airlines.

I personally have been anticipating this announcment for quite a while now and especially since the EU ban was recently lifted.

Avianca have mentioned on several occasions in the past about the lack of suitable slots available at LHR for a Bogota route even though many airlines have obtained slots in that time including Aeromexico so I can see Avianca as another possible canditate for LGW along with TAAG Angola which has also recently revealed their intentions to fly to London.

All these new entrants at LGW remind me of the hey days during the late 70s and early 80s when the airport wax booming with new long haul airlines from all over the world including several that have or are returning to LGW today.

Being all nostaligic it's just a shame that excellent viewing terrace is no more:ugh:

[virginblue]

Any chit-chat about possible new operators for flights to GCI, JER, NQY, IOM. BHD, INV? If I recall correctly, the situation so fsr is like this:

- GCI: GR to introduce a jet (E175 or E195) to partially make up for the lost BE capacity
- JER: BA to introduce an additional rotation
- INV: easyJet has promised to offer two daily flights to allow day returns
- IOM: nothing
- BHD: nothing
- NQY: nothing

[davidjohnson6]

Virginblue - while I don't have insider knowledge, is it possible that Easyjet might use some of their new LGW slots to fly routes currently operated by Flybe, albeit at a lower frequency given an A319 has double the seats of a Dash-8 ? IOM, NQY and maybe JER seem like possible candidates, but given the UK is on holiday for the rest of August, this information probably won't be announced publicly until S14 seats go on sale (am guessing some time in September)

[globetrotter79]

virginblue - do remember that it isn't so long since Aer Lingus started the BHD-LGW route, so this particular route/market isn't really doing all that badly in the greater scheme of things.

The most significant losses (since EZY already announced that they'll be nightstopping an A319 in INV) will be the early morning "business" flight schedules out of IOM, NQY....and NCL?

[adfly]

I believe Aer Lingus will increase the route to 4 daily again next summer. Considering EZY operate 5 daily flights to BFS as well it makes Belfast the least affected market by the loss of Flybe.

[LGS6753]

DJ6 -

is it possible that Easyjet might use some of their new LGW slots to fly routes currently operated by Flybe, albeit at a lower frequency given an A319 has double the seats of a Dash-8? IOM, NQY and maybe JER seem like possible candidates

Highly unlikely, I would think. EZY wanted the slots (for which they paid £20m) to increase existing frequencies and open up new, profitable routes. LGW to IOM, NQY & JER are unlikely to be moneyspinners for EZY due to competition, APD tax and limited catchments at the destinations.

The only benefit they have is that, as short routes, round-trips could be added (probably in the middle of the day) to utilize aircraft between longer sectors. Midday services are not of interest to the business community, especially on short routes, so even that is, I fear, unlikely

[UPP]

Hi,

I'm getting different answers from staff and website! Can someone please tell me which is the nearest car park AND LEVEL for Arrivals at LGW North?

I have to pick someone up at 1 in the morning. They have kids and won't want to go far!

Thanks.

[canberra97]

Well you have probably picked them up by the time you read this but there are two short term car parks at LGW North Terminal both the same distance from the arrivals area and clearly signposted!

[UPP]

OK, thanks for that. That explains why I was given different answers.

Never used North before, only ever used South.

I'm not getting them till the early hours of Sunday, so it's not too late!

Thanks again.

[BAladdy]

BA will transfer an additional 777 to LGW for S14 season. Taking the number of 777 based at the airport to 10. The aircraft is to be used to increase frequencies to current destinations from LGW. Full details are expected to be released by early September. BA will increase frequencies on the following routes (Increase based on S13 schedule):

ANU - Will increase from 5 to 6 x weekly

KIN - Will increase from 3 to 4 x weekly

MCO - Will increase from 10 to 13 x weekly

PUJ - Flights will increase from 2 to 3 x weekly. All flights continue to operate via ANU

UVF - Will increase from 6 x weekly to Daily

[vectisman]

BA Laddy or others in 'the know'

Any rumours of any new short haul BA routes for next summer?
I hear that BA Gatwick has performed well this summer with money being made.
I was thinking of places such as Palma, Funchal, Las Palmas. (although I know that is operating once weekly from Heathrow this winter)

I can also see Larnaca having a frequency increase as loads have been very good. Their seasonal Paphos service has been extended too Hopefully that route may return to year round again in the not too distant future.

On long haul I also hear the Las Vegas flights are performing well.
Does anyone think that the Seychelles may ever be re-instated?

Thanks in advance for any comments or news.

V.

[Aero Mad]

Easyjet will operate LGW-JER 3x daily from 30 March 2014, but not LGW-GCI because of runway restrictions.

channelonline.tv - News, Weather & Information for the Channel Islands - EasyJet launches Jersey Gatwick service (http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=506968)

[FR8364]

These 3 airports VLC, SVQ, BIO still not served from London airports with BA. They are the third, fourth and fith biggest metropolitan areas in Spain, and also important touristic cities/regions being Seville the third most visited city in Spain, Valencia the fourth and Bilbao the sixth.

Although there is lowcost competition from VLG, EZY and RYR, I think there is still a gap to grow mainly in VLC and SVQ as short haul destinations from LGW.

[Skipness One Echo]

Markets are or will be served by IAG partner Vueling, who I imagine may well be the future of the IAG short haul presence at LGW.

[vectisman]

Skipness One Echo
I believe Vueling will have a part to play in the Gatwick-Spain market but not replace BA short haul completely.

V.

[cornishsimon]

Still no sign of a replacement airline for LGW-NQY ?
Odd for a market which is proven at circa 100,000

cs

[Jamesair]

Or a replacement for NCL.

[J-Guy]

Excellent news that easyJet are launching Gatwick - Jersey flights. The route is strategically important for the Island and, despite a good service from British Airways, the route can support competition.

The frequency and timings are better than might have been expected, although I would think the 07.00 out of Jersey with BA will be difficult to get seats on at times. Having said that, the attraction of easyJet will lure leisure travellers. 3x daily is a slight capacity increase on Flybe too, I believe.

[cornishsimon]

With all due respect skipness one echo this has nothing at all to do with my house ! I'm simply asking a question .

However I will now ask one of you, are your comments backed with fact or are they fact & source less ? ie your own opinion ?

If so why is your opinion any more correct than mine ?


cs

[Skipness One Echo]

I seem to have been modded. Let me rephrase. The competitive environment is not conducive to new London - regional links. The train is much preferred over the whole airport experience, quite rightly for short hops. We have lost a great deal of domestic connectivity over recent years from London.
LCY-NCL/BHD/NQY/PLH/LPL/MAN
LGW-NCL/LBA/GCI/IOM/MAN/PLH
STN-PIK/BLK/NQY
LTN-LPL

A few died over night when the West Coast Main Line was fixed, a few died when APD was hiked. Ryanair exited citing APD and having to pay for the use of airports(!) LCY is a very tricky place to make money from as they have high charges and outwith core banking routes, airlines cannot cover their costs on domestics against LHR and loco. LGW has made a decision under new management to implement a pricing structure harmful to operators of smaller aircraft. QED cheerio niche domestic and flybe.
Still no sign of a replacement airline for LGW-NQY ?
Odd for a market which is proven at circa 100,000
Yeah, but pretty seasonal and not something LGW are presumably chasing after making certain flybe departed. The only likely candidate is easyJet.
100,000 over a year is only 136 each way on a daily A319. Now they're not gonna get that outwith the summer hols, so it's not looking likely.

Sorry if I came over badly, I apologise for my tone and choice of words. It was uncalled for.

[EI-BUD]

I seem to have been modded. Let me rephrase. The competitive environment is not conducive to new London - regional links


Skipness One Echo, this is very true. And a parallel with the situation on the Dublin Cork route some years back, Aer Arann couldnt compete with Ryanair and Ryanair couldnt compete with rail or indeed road. Now there is no service, where as many suggest a single operator with right aircraft size could work and also assist in developing transatlantic connectivity...

EI-BUD

[True Blue]

KE was to re-start operations this summer to Seoul. So far that hasn't happened although flights remain in the system but not bookable. Does anyone know their intentions, starting or not?

TB

[LadyL2013]

Does anyone know how often 26R/8L is used? I can see how often 27L/8R is used, but can't seem to find out about 27R/8L.

Also is it only used when 26L/8R is out of use?

[willy wombat]

27L/8R and 27R/8L - the amazing bendy runways

[LadyL2013]

Gah! Typo! I meant 26R/8L

[Letsflycwl]

Don't forget that LCY also had links with both CWL and SWS too

[gilesdavies]

Must be a bit of disappointment at Gatwick today, Norwegian have announced the schedules for their 787s and London does not get a look in at any of the new routes.

They are launching routes from the Scandanavian capitals to Oakland, Los Angeles, New York and Orlando.

I would imagine Gatwick would jump at the opportunity at an LAX and NYC service!

I think they were only taking delivery of 6-8 787's, so I would imagine their is little slack left in the scheule for any services from LGW!

Newsdesk - Norwegian (http://media.norwegian.com/en/#/pressrelease/view/norwegian-launches-new-routes-between-scandinavia-and-los-angeles-san-francisco-and-orlando-900794)

[j636]

Not sure if its being posted earlier to Air China are cancelling LGW service from October, not sure if its just for winter.

[LAX_LHR]

I wonder if its a case at LGW that the initial incentives are good but the general fees thereafter are too much for most airlines?

Seems a couple of airlines gained have been lost not long after.

With Air China, given passenger figures for UK-China are on the rise and so many UK airports are clamouring for service, will this be a UK reduction for Air China, or could they be about to shift to another UK point?
MAN for example has said it will be 'extremely disappointed' if a China link is not secured by about May next year, so, they must be in fairly advanced discussions with someone to make such a comment, as new services are not secured overnight.

[nigel osborne]

J636.

Re Air China, Airline routes quotes further alterations to the planned summer 2014 service are likely to be announced in December..what ever that means, hopefully a resumption and daily rotation..

Yet more slots for Easy Jet this winter then zzzz

Nigel

[Skipness One Echo]

Air China out of LHR is going from the B77W to the A332 for the winter so that's quite a capacity drop.

[VickersVicount]

Depends which variant of A32 they use.
773 - 313 seats
A32 can be 283 in one of their international configs.
Infact most of their newer A32 deliveries have been in that config.
So not a huge drop if that was the case.

[LAX_LHR]

So not a huge drop if that was the case.


It is actually quite large. To loose 3xA332 and the seat difference from the B77W to A332 takes out a fair few seats.

[BAladdy]

VY have released there S14 LGW-BCN schedule with flights going to 3 x Daily

[sxflyer]

Perhaps Air China are off to try out a different London airport in a joint deal with MAN?!

[yotty]

Some of our chaps have been doing B773 ER courses. Rumours are Garuda and Philippines might be back!

[Wycombe]

Well, Garuda were coming this November with a non-stop from CGK, but sure I read elsewhere that's now delayed until Spring '14.

[Skipness One Echo]

Quick question, given BA took over BCAL and the opening of the North Terminal are both dated 1988, did BCAL ever fly from the new facility?

[willy wombat]

I am 99% sure not. I was a guest at the royal opening of the North Terminal and am pretty sure it was all BA branded.

[yotty]

Wiki states that BA "merged" with BA in December 1987. I guess there must have been some BCAL "livered" flights around that time though.

[Skipness One Echo]

The BAC111s were flying in BCAL colours with BAW7- prefixing the old BCAL flight nos. I have never seen a picture of any BCAL aircraft at Gatwick North until today when I came across a DC10 pic I thought may have been, I'll see if I can find the link. BCAL were supposed to be an anchor carrier were they not? I know the old BA Operation was.

[canberra97]

Skipness

There are several pictures on certain aviation sites inc www.airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net) that show BCAL liveried aircraft mainly DC-10s and B-747s at the North Terminal during 1988, and yes BCAL were supposed to be the anchor tenant of LGW North Terminal before the 'merger' with BA in 1987 but by the time it was opened in 1988 it was BA branded with no evidence of BCAL.


With regards to the earlier poster regarding the return of Garuda and Philippine Airlines at LGW, Garuda has set back the resumption of flights into LGW from Novemeber 2013 to April 2014 due to runway works at Jakarta and Philippine Airlines have stated that they intend to restart flights from Manilla to LGW in December although no exact dates have yet been announced, the same applies to Air Zimbabwe which had initally stated that they intended to resume flights from Harare to LGW on the 15th November 2013 but have yet to confirm this.

With the recent announcement that Air China are to cease flights to Beijing in October I find it unbelievable that when ever LGW gains a new long haul carrier another one leaves, how is the airport going to grow there long haul network if this continues to happen!

[wallp]

It will be great to see Garuda & Philippine A/L back at Gatwick. I recall seeing both their B742's at the airport back in the day. I believe Garuda will use a B777-300 when they return but what about Philippine A/L?

As for Air China, isn't the cancellation of Beijing flights a seasonal thing & doesnt the same apply to Korean's Seoul service? That said, it's dissapointing that such a vibrant market as China can't be made to work year round.

Could there be any other new long haul routes on the cards? How about Cambodia? Like Vietnam, a growing tourist destination. Or perhaps, Thailand?

I'm surprised no one has yet started regular Seychelles flights. Could that be an option, perhaps for BA?

Also, is there any chance of some South American routes - say Argentina, Chile or Peru?

And I've often thought Miami could have potential from Gatwick?

[LAX_LHR]

doesnt the same apply to Korean's Seoul service


Well given Korean never came back, lets hope for LGW's sake it is not the same for Air China.

[cornishsimon]

I'm surprised no one has yet started regular Seychelles flights.
Could that be an option, perhaps for BA?




Keeps getting mentioned along with various other possible BA destinations ex LGW



cs

[Skipness One Echo]

As for Air China, isn't the cancellation of Beijing flights a seasonal thing & doesnt the same apply to Korean's Seoul service? That said, it's dissapointing that such a vibrant market as China can't be made to work year round.

Could there be any other new long haul routes on the cards? How about Cambodia? Like Vietnam, a growing tourist destination. Or perhaps, Thailand?

I'm surprised no one has yet started regular Seychelles flights. Could that be an option, perhaps for BA?

Also, is there any chance of some South American routes - say Argentina, Chile or Peru?

And I've often thought Miami could have potential from Gatwick?
Air China and Korean are not returning as things stand, split long haul operations don't seem to work LHR/LGW. Many have tried, none have succeeded, the only ones current are LHR/LGW-LAS with BA. Thailand is low yield leisure, BA's Bangkok is suffering particularly from low yields and is dropping from a B744 to a B772. Air Seychelles used to be at LGW, moved to LHR then gave up as they were being squeezed by Emirates. (see also Bangkok, above). Any South American service would be a LHR one, I can't see LGW coming close.
As to MIA, well BA used to have split ops between LHR/LGW and VS also used to fly LGW-MIA but all now are at LHR. Given BA's close relationship with AA and oneworld at T3, I don't think MIA is an option, indeed BA have dropped a frequency which AA have picked up.

[wallp]

So aside from the core long haul holiday routes which already operate, does anyone see a market for any other long haul routes from Gatwick or is the airport wasting its time trying to attract new carriers/routes for long haul destinations which, like Beijing, Seoul, Kuala Lumpur etc simply won't last?

[few@two]

Wasting its time... Work on the market you have. As you say low cost and leisure...

[davidjohnson6]

few@two - I disagree in part. Heathrow is expensive but it still has plenty of less-than-global airlines. Do (for example) Biman Bangladesh, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan airlines *really* need to pay up for the LHR entry ticket, or could they be persuaded to move to and stay at Gatwick ?

[wallp]

If few@two is right, what new long-haul leisure routes not currently served have potential from Gatwick?

David makes a good point about carriers like Biman. Could Gatwick offer them a deal which would be hard to refuse?

Also, Emirates have made a success of their Dubai route without their Heathrow operation suffering. Is there anything to be learned from them?

[True Blue]

Is it not also a possibility that when an airline starts from Lgw, when also using Lhr, that Lgw might have more appeal than they thought and Lhr suffers more than they thought? At some point, if the market keeps growing and there is no more room at Lhr and they want to continue to expand, then they will have to accept Lgw or another entry point. I cannot believe that BA, VS and EK would have kept their routes so long if they didn't make money. Before then, we had American carriers for years at Lgw, were they losing money all the time they were at Lgw. ( know all about the restrictions they faced etc).

[Skipness One Echo]

Do (for example) Biman Bangladesh, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan airlines *really* need to pay up for the LHR entry ticket, or could they be persuaded to move to and stay at Gatwick ?
Snobbery? Turkmenistan have two flights a week off peak, Tue/Sat at LHR, Uzbekistan Tue/Fri. It makes no odds to anyone whether they use LHR or LGW, the market prefers LHR so LHR it seems to be. Even Azerbaijan moved out of LGW to LHR as soon as they could. There is zero connectivity at LGW and loads at LHR. Biman would see it as a loss of face I suspect, besides one could not accuse them of seeking a commercial return (!) btw Biman, Turkmenistan and Uzbek put together are only seven flights a week. LGW is clutching at straws in long haul legacy now if that's the strategy.

The US carriers at LGW were not loss making, far from it, however moving the same aircraft to LHR increases connectivity and drives up revenue at the pointy end.
BA and VS moved everything except sun holiday routes to LHR, the remainder seem to do just fine at LGW.

[wallp]

So if the US carriers were making money at LGW when they were there, why couldnt new long haul routes that aren't principally to leisure based destinations eg Florida & the Carribean, also work & be profitable for carriers?

I accept the issue of connectivity which doesn't exist at Gatwick as it does at Heathrow but take a route like London to New York - whilst a lot of connecting passengers will use such a route, there must also be a large number of passengers who fly the route on a point to point basis whether its for business or leisure? Assuming that's the case why can't a route like that also work at Gatwick?

If passengers can accept Gatwick for short haul travel, why not for more long haul too, or is the need to offer a connection hub so fundamental to success?

[Skipness One Echo]

I accept the issue of connectivity which doesn't exist at Gatwick as it does at Heathrow but take a route like London to New York - whilst a lot of connecting passengers will use such a route, there must also be a large number of passengers who fly the route on a point to point basis whether its for business or leisure? Assuming that's the case why can't a route like that also work at Gatwick?
It's worth a google and a search as it's been asked a million times. Basically Big Airways Corps wants to fly from London to New York. They will make £x at LGW and £(x+y) from LHR with connectivity. Aircraft are the most mobile of assets, so why are you flying from LGW when you can make more at LHR? It can work at LGW, no issues except the rather pressing one that your competitors are making more at LHR as they will have more premium passengers. Hence LGW is LHR's waiting room. BA's LGW-JFK was understood to be their worst performing New York rotation, as LHR filled from the front back, LGW filled from the back first, hence the yield was much lower. So guess what, they took all the LGW-JFK customers with them when they moved the route to LHR and added another LHR-JFK. Win-Win. It matters not one whit how big LGW's catchment area is, as if you force them to use LHR, they will come, and you can make more money. It's certainly not the case that no one has ever tried, BA have tried LGW-JFK at least three times, VS have flown LGW-JFK and LGW-EWR, DL flew LGW-JFK, and I think American may also have had a go in the past.

Roughly speaking...

[True Blue]

But what happens when Lhr is unable to take any more?

TB

[davidjohnson6]

When LHR is full then a big airline that flies transatlantic approaches a minor airline on the verge of going bust, offers the small airline a pile of cash to hand over the desired slots, small airline moves to Gatwick / Luton and delays bankruptcy for another year or more and big airline gets to fly LHR-JFK

Have a google on "slot trading heathrow" for details

[cornishsimon]

Did BA fly the LGW-NYC route with a 3 or 4 class 772 ?

cs