KE have announced the cancellation of the LGW-SEL route. This was originally suspended until April but the decision has now been taken to pull it permanently. Source AirlineRoute.

The code is ICN for Seoul.

SEL is also used as the airport code

Quoting jet72uk (Reply 2): SEL is also used as the airport code

It's not an airport code. It's a city code. It used to be the airport code for Gimpo Airport until Incheon was opened, and Gimpo was assigned GMP. SEL is now the city code for all Seoul airports.

Quoting jet72uk (Reply 2): SEL is also used as the airport code

SEL is Seoul Kimpo. ICN is Seoul Incheon. These are not the same or interchangeable. I believe the flight in question is LGW-ICN.

YOWza

This doesn't come as a surprise. Now that BA has entered the route, but flying from LHR rather than LGW, there will be less of a need for KE's LGW service.

Regardless of the IATA code for Seoul, which you guys seem more concerned about discussing. This is a great shame.

The airline managed to pull some big players and prestigious routes to the airport, but unfortunately these seem to have back fired and have lost LH to FRA, HX to HKG and now this Seoul service with KE.

Also the long established US Airways service to CLT is soon to be moved to LHR...

I wonder how the Vietnam Airlines service is doing and wonder if this is a matter of time before this stopped or moved to LHR - if and when slots become available. Also I think AeroMexico is still operating from their.

Even if the routes from LGW do make money, it seems the likes of LHR makes a LOT LOT more money!

It seems the only airlines that can make long haul work at LGW, and last is the likes of BA and VS and these are primarily to leisure destinations or ex-colonial routes with a large market of these populations living in the UK.

[Edited 2013-01-03 08:44:09]

Yes there will be no American carriers once US leaves. In fact the only USA destinations will be LAS, MCO, TPA. Still no Paris link either. Just a slight correction LH resumes FRA in April.

Maybe KAL will put an A380 on the LHR route instead, or may revert to B744's.

wonder if this means that the KE ICN-LHR flight will be upgraded to the A380

I guess this suggests that London is not the final destination of the majority of the passengers on the flight.

What we really need then for Gatwick is a dedicated scheduled regional and inter-European carrier to bring it back as a viable alternative to LHR.

Quoting yowza (Reply 4): SEL is Seoul Kimpo. ICN is Seoul Incheon. These are not the same or interchangeable. I believe the flight in question is LGW-ICN.

SEL is the city code, Gimpo Airport is GMP while Incheon is ICN. So using SEL isn't entirely wrong... although saying pulling SEL-LON would be wrong   

Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 6): Also I think AeroMexico is still operating from their.

No. AM never served LGW. It was MX. But they went bust. AM just very recently launched MEX-LHR. AM uses T4 at LHR alongside the rest of the SkyTeam members.

Quoting jet72uk (Reply 7): Just a slight correction LH resumes FRA in April.

Seems like LH is even flying now. I did a quick check on their website and it shows flights from FRA with the A340-600 and from MUC with the A340-300.

Quoting LH7478i (Reply 13): Seems like LH is even flying now. I did a quick check on their website and it shows flights from FRA with the A340-600 and from MUC with the A340-300.

I believe they referred to Lufthansa´s LGW service, not LH´s ICN routes  

I just don't understand why LGW is so bad at keeping long haul airlines / "good" airlines (no disrespect to easyJet). It has it's own catchment area that contains millions, literally millions of people, many of whom are wealthy and middle class and frequent travellers, and some of whom are the wealthiest people on the planet. Surrey, Sussex (the runway is half in each county), Kent - it's hours of driving from some parts of these areas to Heathrow. Come on, half of Brighton are professional musicians who spend half their life on tour, the rest of whom are designers, finance people, celebrities, wealthy young professionals, you name it and Heathrow is such a pig to get to from Brighton. That's one town. There are hundreds of others like it, towns much closer to Gatwick, packed with CEOs who frequent boardrooms in New York and Mexico City and Shanghai (and yes, Seoul) and rich retired couples who love Hong Kong and their grandkids who know San Francisco, Goa, and Melbourne like their own backyard. There are millions of these people in Sussex and Surrey! And LGW can't keep a single flight by a US carrier. Soon the only transatlantic from LGW will be Virgin to Vegas and dear old Air Transat. Yet half the punters heading to Heathrow are driving past the M23 spur of the M25 which would have them at Gatwick in ten minutes.

Anyone got the slightest clue what's going on here? It's the single biggest mystery in aviation today if you ask me. To clarify - I understand why LHR is the world's number 1 - London is the hub of international life and generates a tsunami of high yield O&D traffic, which in turn creates such a critical mass as a connecting point that you can add a tonne of transit traffic. A f***tonne (technical term, don't panic). What I'm saying is, Gatwick has a massive catchment area that doesn't even include London*!

* and oh wait, one more thing - LGW also has a train that runs every fifteen mins into Victoria station, an infinitely more central terminus than the LHR Express terminus at Paddington, and with a journey time of only half an hour - so why not include London as a catchment area? that's a route into town most airports of the world would give a kidney to have!

Anyone have any ideas what the loads/yield looks like on Korean Air to Gatwick?

How is the BA flight doing to ICN, btw?

Thanks for any info!

Air Afreak

I'm always surprised that BA never made a success of its LGW-JFK service when you consider LGW's affluent catchment area.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 15): and oh wait, one more thing - LGW also has a train that runs every fifteen mins into Victoria station, an infinitely more central terminus than the LHR Express terminus at Paddington,

There's also x 4 Southern Trains an hour to Victoria and x 4 Thameslink services to London Bridge and the City.

ICN-LGW made some sense in KE wanted to offer red-eyes from ICN to LON and couldn't get slots that early in the morning @ LHR.
I'm surprised KE cancelled ICN-LGW altogether not even operating red eyes westbound it a couple of days per week high-season, with the same aircraft flown to LHR (for crews sake) only the days KE knows it runs into capacity problems to/from LHR.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 15): Anyone got the slightest clue what's going on here? It's the single biggest mystery in aviation today if you ask me. To clarify - I understand why LHR is the world's number 1 - London is the hub of international life and generates a tsunami of high yield O&D traffic, which in turn creates such a critical mass as a connecting point that you can add a tonne of transit traffic. A f***tonne (technical term, don't panic). What I'm saying is, Gatwick has a massive catchment area that doesn't even include London*!

Hi

I don't why LGW hasn't been able to keep LH/KE etc and also VS/BA services to JFK/EWR.

It could be marketing, with overseas passengers flying to London thinking Heathrow rather than anywhere else.

I also wonder is it at least in part due to internal issues within airlines. I once was told that an airline cancelled a route not because it was not making money. But because internal management were worried that it was effecting revenue on another route.

The US carriers that did use LGW as a London destination were all very keen to move to LHR as they believed that revenue is higher there. Then once they started to move services they didn't want some flights at LGW and some at LHR so Gatwick lost out.

I just wonder whats going to happen in time. If Heathrow gets to a point were its full are we going to see more people flight indirect and using LCY. Or maybe even direct Eurostar services to CDG!

Alex

New York seems to have little trouble in attracting the same long haul airline to both JFK and EWR, so it might be the sky high rate of UK,s APD taxes that contribute the LGW,s long-haul demise.

It's nothing to do with APD. This has been discussed so many times, it's market behaviour. BCAL, Laker and very nearly VS failed because LGW fills from the back forward and LHR fills from the front back. It was ever thus. LGW-JFK on BA ha the worst yields of all their LON-NYC flights, go figure.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 15): I just don't understand why LGW is so bad at keeping long haul airlines / "good" airlines (no disrespect to easyJet).

LGW is an O&D airport, not a transfer airport so long haul traffic with the exception of the BA and VS bucket and spade flights (which to an extent include Vietnam Airlines) and EK, there is no way it can viably work. LHR is where all the connections are, it has a MUCH MUCH bigger catchment area than Gatwick and is easily reachable from more areas of the country.

I'm sorry LGW.. I appreciate your attempts to become a viable long haul hub but it just ain't going to happen.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 21): LGW fills from the back forward and LHR fills from the front back.

I don't believe that theory at all. There may be a higher incidence of J and F passengers at LHR but Y is the bread and butter of all airlines. What LHR has is more opportunities for pax to transfer domestically and to Europe. Who wants to get off a scheduled long haul route and get on a Ryanair or easyjet flight? None I would guess.

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 22): I'm sorry LGW. I appreciate your attempts to become a viable long haul hub but it just ain't going to happen.

It does happen. LGW goes through these fads and fashions, these ups and downs. What's wrong, afteral, with LGW being a cheap flight airport full of sardine can charters and demeaning LCC's. There's money in them hills.

Does LGW have to be LHR. No, not really. There are fewer people travelling these days and it makes sense for KE to consolidate at LHR until a point when economic activity improves.

Quoting babybus (Reply 23): Does LGW have to be LHR. No, not really. There are fewer people travelling these days and it makes sense for KE to consolidate at LHR until a point when economic activity improves.

Also, I think it is quite reasonable to assume that KE start flights to LGW due to slot restrictions preventing a new flight to LHR.

KE will most likely upgrade to the A380 out of LHR although the plane is in such a low config it probably won't have much of a dent.

If there is one very obvious airline missing from LGW than it must be KLM. The Dutch airline operates from most UK airports to AMS in order to feed its global network and LGW - for some reason - is the largest UK airport missing from KLMs list of UK destinations.

- Aberdeen
- Glasgow
- Edinburgh
- Newcastle
- Teesside
- Humberside
- Manchester
- Birmingham
- Norwich
- London City
- London Heathrow
- Bristol
- Cardiff
- Manston

Both BA (upto 4x/day) and easyJet (upto 6x/day) operate from LGW-AMS, but I'd be surprised if they feed much traffic to KLMs network.

Quoting babybus (Reply 23): I don't believe that theory at all.

Continental, USAirways, Delta, Cathay Pacific, Air New Zealand, NWA, Korean Air (twice), Virgin Atlantic, Laker, Hong Kong Airlines etc etc all found this out and moved to LHR or went bust. BA found this when nearly every move they moved LHR-LGW in building up the second hub saw a drop in yield. You might be right and they might all be wrong but come on man!

Quoting babybus (Reply 23): It does happen. LGW goes through these fads and fashions, these ups and downs.

No it doesn't. LGW has never been a viable long haul hub, not ever. BCAL was uncompetitve against BA when they were at LGW and BA were at LHR, VS nearly went bust for the same reason. What period would you say was LGW with a viable long haul hub? The BA hub without the hubbub was loss making and closed.

Quoting babybus (Reply 23): There are fewer people travelling these days

Are LGW and LHR numbers up or down?

I love Gatters and use it frequently but I also know how it works. I wonder if GIP will ever see any return on such a major investment? They have the most luxurious toilets I have ever seen in LGW South and that will have to be paid for somehow (!)

Quoting factsonly (Reply 25): If there is one very obvious airline missing from LGW than it must be KLM

They don't operate from any other London airports as they gave LCY to WX and pulled Transavia from LGW. If LH can't make FRA work year round against EZY, and KLM deal with a load of connecting passengers, I don't see LGW as a good bet. Why connect when you can fly direct from LHR or support the rather large existing KLM operation from Terminal 4?

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 15): I just don't understand why LGW is so bad at keeping long haul airlines / "good" airlines (no disrespect to easyJet). It has it's own catchment area that contains millions, literally millions of people, many of whom are wealthy and middle class and frequent travellers, and some of whom are the wealthiest people on the planet.

It's true that for a large number of affluent southeasterners, LGW is more convenient that LHR. However, for the vast majority of the country, the first longhual/major airport they reach is LHR (from the west/middle/north of UK). It's all these people that contribute to LHR. They don't want to travel an extra hour to LGW.

Quoting gabrielchew (Reply 28): It's true that for a large number of affluent southeasterners, LGW is more convenient that LHR. However, for the vast majority of the country, the first longhual/major airport they reach is LHR (from the west/middle/north of UK). It's all these people that contribute to LHR. They don't want to travel an extra hour to LGW.

Also LHR is an established hub for transfer passengers.

I think LGW could becoming more of a hub if the likes of U2 allowed transfers. Some LCCs are dabbling with this, notably Norwegian who allow connections from international to domestic flights and some international to international.

Quoting AirAfreak (Reply 16): Anyone have any ideas what the loads/yield looks like on Korean Air to Gatwick?

According to this article, the ICN-LGW service is used a lot by Korean group tourists so the yields cannot be great. In addition, we are now running into the off-peak travel season so bookings are down and that's why the service was being suspended this month.


http://www.businesstraveller.com/new...ean-to-suspend-gatwick-seoul-route

SKAirbus is wrong on so many counts.

Quoting LondonCity (Reply 17): I'm always surprised that BA never made a success of its LGW-JFK service when you consider LGW's affluent catchment area.

Because while JFK/NYC will always have appeal as a leisure route, this sort of travel is almost entirely seasonal which makes it almost impossible to run successfully throughout the whole 12 months of the year. The real bucks to be made to JFK will always be from business travellers and they want frequency and connectivity, neither of which LGW could offer.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 15): Soon the only transatlantic from LGW will be Virgin to Vegas and dear old Air Transat.

So BA is ending MCO/TPA/almost all Caribbean routes? Must have missed that press release....
  

I agree though that it is sad to have lost KE, HX, D7 etc etc all in recent years but this is the reality of LGW. And of course, as others have said, it's all about connections that LGW just doesn't offer in the same way that LHR can. BA don't even fly to NCL any more from LGW and have to codeshare with BE.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 15): It has it's own catchment area that contains millions, literally millions of people, many of whom are wealthy and middle class and frequent travellers, and some of whom are the wealthiest people on the planet.

These types will never be able to keep an airport afloat on their own, let alone subsidise frequent perennial long haul services throughout the world. I grew up down in these parts, and believe me, most of these guys fly U2 around Europe without much a problem.

Quoting babybus (Reply 23): I don't believe that theory at all. There may be a higher incidence of J and F passengers at LHR but Y is the bread and butter of all airlines. What LHR has is more opportunities for pax to transfer domestically and to Europe. Who wants to get off a scheduled long haul route and get on a Ryanair or easyjet flight? None I would guess.

If Y is the "bread and butter" of all airlines, why is it the case for every long haul aircraft operated by BA from LHR at least 50% of the cabin floor area and normally far more, is allocated to premium passengers ?

Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 33): If Y is the "bread and butter" of all airlines, why is it the case for every long haul aircraft operated by BA from LHR at least 50% of the cabin floor area and normally far more, is allocated to premium passengers ?

I suppose the premise is that airlines 'break even' with Y passengers, and make all their profit with J/F passengers. The majority of bookings on airlines will be for passengers travelling down the back, but the focus for a company is always going to be on people in the expensive seats.

Kind of makes you wonder how ZX survived on their LGW-JFK flights, I'm sure they were doing fine until they started fooling around with the timings ie. a stop in BDA etc.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 27): Quoting factsonly (Reply 25): If there is one very obvious airline missing from LGW than it must be KLM They don't operate from any other London airports as they gave LCY to WX and pulled Transavia from LGW. If LH can't make FRA work year round against EZY, and KLM deal with a load of connecting passengers, I don't see LGW as a good bet. Why connect when you can fly direct from LHR or support the rather large existing KLM operation from Terminal 4?

The answer is simple. The London market is absolutely massive and the catchment area for LGW is quite separate from the catchment area of LHR, all be it with some overlap. Pax. traffic between LGW-AMS has grown significantly in 2012 from 627.500 (2011) to about 675.000 (2012), with BA reducing frequency in 2013 while EZY is expanding. So there are many business people travelling to/from the LGW catchment area that prefer to fly from their local airport. SKYTEAM can offer LGW-AMS-ICN at both a competitive fare level & travel time in comparison to M23-M25-LHR-ICN.

As for EZY, this airline has a sizeable operation to/from AMS and KLM is one of the few carriers that has shown to be able to survive in direct competition with the airline. See MAN-AMS, BRS-AMS, NCL-AMS, GLA-AMS, EDI-AMS.

If KLM believes Manston, Humberside and Teesside can contribute to their network, than surely the sizeable LGW market could as well. Without stealing pax. from LHR too much!

But you may be right as they tried it for years with DC-9s and it did not last, but that was prior todays traffic levels.

The examples you cite have had KLM the dominant carrier for years whereas at LGW they'd be the newbie. One other things is that they seem keen to focus on LHR as they are blatantly slot sitting. That's another reason to push KLM and Skyteam to LHR without diluting matters by opening LGW. Thise flights are often quite empty.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 37): newbie. One other things is that they seem keen to focus on LHR as they are blatantly slot sitting.

The next question is - why have they been 'slot sitting' for so long? Sometimes there are three smaller aircraft in two hours at LHR on the AMS route. Surely they could have found a more profitable route or partner airline to use the slots by now?

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 26): Continental, USAirways, Delta, Cathay Pacific, Air New Zealand, NWA, Korean Air (twice), Virgin Atlantic, Laker, Hong Kong Airlines etc etc all found this out and moved to LHR or went bust.

The notable exception, as in many things, is EK which has been ferrying Londoners and SE Englanders into its DXB hub from LGW for years, complementary to its LHR services. Currently 3 x 77W daily from LGW.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 26): Continental, USAirways, Delta, Cathay Pacific, Air New Zealand, NWA, Korean Air (twice), Virgin Atlantic, Laker, Hong Kong Airlines etc etc all found this out and moved to LHR or went bust. BA found this when nearly every move they moved LHR-LGW in building up the second hub saw a drop in yield. You might be right and they might all be wrong but come on man!

Just wondering when Air China will drop the PEK-LGW service.

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 39): The notable exception, as in many things, is EK which has been ferrying Londoners and SE Englanders into its DXB hub from LGW for years, complementary to its LHR services. Currently 3 x 77W daily from LGW.

You make a good point. EK must have a good marketing department. It also helps that EK serves so many destinations beyond DXB.
I am surprised that QR couldn't make a success of LGW. It pulled its flights 18 months ago in favour of expanding its MAN operation.
At the time QR said that the LGW route was a poor performer with low yield and an average load factor of 50 and 60 per cent.
I find that hard to believe. If EK can succeed then I would have thought QR could do likewise.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...minate-london-gatwick-service.html

Quoting LondonCity (Reply 41): I find that hard to believe. If EK can succeed then I would have thought QR could do likewise

But QR doesnt and didnt have nearly as many connecting opportunities as EK. For the general public they are not quite as well known as EK either.

The best word to describe EK is exceptional, in that the usual rules don't seem to apply. QR have worked to build up LHR to 4-5 daily which I suspect is partly why LGW was dropped. EK are maxxed out with five daily A388s, they couldn't get all their London traffic into LHR if they wanted to. KE was hit by BA coming back into the market, I suspect CA may stay the course until something opens up at LHR. The timings are rather unusal for an asian arrival into London.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 15): just don't understand why LGW is so bad at keeping long haul airlines

I believe I read somewhere that VS said once they moved a flight from LGW to LHR the yields were up something like 15-20%.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 21): It's nothing to do with APD. This has been discussed so many times, it's market behaviour. BCAL, Laker and very nearly VS failed because LGW fills from the back forward and LHR fills from the front back. It was ever thus. LGW-JFK on BA ha the worst yields of all their LON-NYC flights, go figure.

Exactly - The premium market go for LHR and LGW has a more leisure orientated reputation.

Quoting factsonly (Reply 25): If there is one very obvious airline missing from LGW than it must be KLM.

They tried with Transavia and that service was stopped.

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 38): Sometimes there are three smaller aircraft in two hours at LHR on the AMS route.

There are some flights that depart within 15 minutes of each other.

I was involved with the withdrawl of DL from LGW and am now based at LHR for another carrier.

DL only managed a small number of connections daily, the majority coming in with EK, an odd few would transfer with BE. Otherwise, there was no connections on the flight, so it was literally all LON - US traffic. The majority of the connections off the flight were to MCO, owing partly to the fact the DL11 was a connection flight LGW - ATL - MCO.

Once the flight moved to become the DL35 from LHR and upguaged to a 764, the increase in the percentage of J seats sold was noticeable and that is what matters to the bottom line of the airline. In addition, at LGW, at times, Y was oversold and J empty, so upgrading was required, which devalued the product. More often than not, booking Y as a frequent flier would get you at very least Y+ and more than likely J, so why pay for it!

Now at LHR, it is clear to see the number of connections made and what that adds to the value of a flight going from LHR. To the max, up to around 50% of a flight could be connecting passengers. Being able to connect on to the flight from many different originating points opens up the flight to be sold from many more markets.

LGW allowing U2 to expand the way it has, whilst beneficial in filling the slots and having operating flights, only decreased the possibility of long haul scheduled operations operating from the airport. Whilst in theory, it should work from LGW as much as any airfield, and comparisons can be drawn globally, it doesn't. As much as LHR is "full" there are always going to be options for airlines that wish to fly there.

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 38): The next question is - why have they been 'slot sitting' for so long? Sometimes there are three smaller aircraft in two hours at LHR on the AMS route. Surely they could have found a more profitable route or partner airline to use the slots by now?

The answer is simple, it's use it or loose it, and Skyteam doesn't want to loose the slots. They may hope to exchange the slots for slots with better timings or hope that they can change the slots into better ones. Sending a F70 to LHR is an easy option moroever as there is still a lot of O&D between AMS and LHR, thus you do get some taffic. It will be interesting what happens with these slots once VS becomes a Skyteam member. I personally wouldn't be surpirsed if some flights will go.

Quoting anstar (Reply 44): There are some flights that depart within 15 minutes of each other.

At present only KL1028/1032.

Quoting factsonly (Reply 36): But you may be right as they tried it for years with DC-9s and it did not last, but that was prior todays traffic levels.

Quoting anstar (Reply 44): They tried with Transavia and that service was stopped.

They did try it after the DC9. However, they failed against Transavia and BA (at the time Transavia wasn't part of the KL Group) and it didn't last long. Also note that KL used to be strong at STN and LCY is currently their main London airport for O&D.

[Edited 2013-01-05 11:03:09]

Quoting LJ (Reply 46): and LCY is currently their main London airport for O&D.

Though not under the KLM brand as the route was given to CityJet in early 2009 and even KGS is now closed.

Final Korean Airlines ICN tonight as HL7721 operated KE909 / 910. I had not realised that the service no longer nightstopped? I thought that was the intention, a daylight flight. As it stands, it's shadowing the existing LHR service both ways. Glad I made the effort to see it though.

Did you grab a shot of it skippness!?

Arrived and departed in deepest darkness alas, on 08R which was worse.

Sad that KE pulled the service. They should have kept the timings as it was before with a late afternoon departure from ICN and an early morning arrival back there. Perfect for connections onto their Japanese services and elsewhere. Instead the flight operated to similar times as their existing LHR service, and they wonder why it suddenly didn't do too well. Bad flight planning in my view killed the route. Also, an A332 would have been better than the 772 they used.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 15): and oh wait, one more thing - LGW also has a train that runs every fifteen mins into Victoria station, an infinitely more central terminus than the LHR Express terminus at Paddington, and with a journey time of only half an hour - so why not include London as a catchment area? that's a route into town most airports of the world would give a kidney to have!

Well said, solid post. Posts like that are what makes this website worth reading.

Quoting Richcandy (Reply 19): It could be marketing, with overseas passengers flying to London thinking Heathrow rather than anywhere else.

Yes, seems like it. One time this EK ticket agent raised such an eyebrow when I told him I was headed to LGW. LGW was shit to a man of his caliber I guess!

Quoting nclmedic (Reply 32): The real bucks to be made to JFK will always be from business travellers and they want frequency and connectivity,

Fail to see how LHR's connectivity is really so crucial - who in their right mind would connect at LHR rather than HEL, FRA, AMS? I mean, it matters, but not for (say) Star Alliance or SkyTeam carriers.

I think LHR's victory is all marketing. Or, London market has shrunk to where it cannot support 2 longhaul airports, but I doubt that's the case.

Quoting TC957 (Reply 51): Instead the flight operated to similar times as their existing LHR service, and they wonder why it suddenly didn't do too well. Bad flight planning in my view killed the route.

Minimum connect time for KE to KE at ICN is 45 minutes as it seems which does give good connection opportunity and not just Japan. I figure yield wise it was not doing well at all period A330 or not.

KE0129 1700 AKL
KE0629 1705 DPS
KE0651 1715 BKK
KE0663 1725 REP
KE1403 1725 PUS
KE0763 1800 KIJ
KE0125 1820 MEL
KE0885 1830 KMG
KE0747 1830 OKJ
KE0689 1830 PNH
KE0705 1835 NRT
KE0781 1840 FUK

Quoting Flighty (Reply 52): Fail to see how LHR's connectivity is really so crucial - who in their right mind would connect at LHR rather than HEL, FRA, AMS? I mean, it matters, but not for (say) Star Alliance or SkyTeam carriers.

I do it almost on a monthly basis, connecting thru LHR that is.

Altho I think it was a tounge-in-cheek remark in reference to not a lot of options via LGW.

I prefer LGW any day over LHR, hands down. But, when I sat for almost 40 minutes before departing LGW with only two aircraft in front of us, kind of makes LGW a pain in the butt. I cannot imagine the queue that airport has during the busy times and how long it takes from push to wheels up.

Flighty I think perhaps you need to look and see how the market behaves. It's not marketing, it's critical mass of connections and it most certainly is about connectivity. The fact that you and sometimes I would prefer to use LGW isn't a core issue in driving growth.