David_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7145 posts, RR: 14 Reply 4, posted (6 years 7 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3424 times:
Quoting 8herveg (Thread starter): Could they not just fly from Stansted instead. There are lots of slots available there.
Are there really "lots" of slots available? Last time I looked on STN's teletext arrivals, I thought it was crammed, especially when one doubles the total to take into account the departures.
For some airlines, any "spare" slots at STN may not be commercially attractive consequently they will endeavour with the status quo (especially if "some" LGW airlines are amongst those seeking entry into LHR when it would be pointless them moving out.)
8herveg From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 1106 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (6 years 7 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3397 times:
Quoting David_itl (Reply 5): Are there really "lots" of slots available? Last time I looked on STN's teletext arrivals, I thought it was crammed, especially when one doubles the total to take into account the departures.
Well Stansted is forecast to have 35 million passengers p.a. through its terminal by 2015, using the current facilities and infrastructure (i.e. single runway, single terminal airport).
It currently sees 23 million p.a. so I am assuming that there are slots available in order to meet this rising demand. With slots being difficult to gain at Heathrow and Gatwick, Stansted is really the next best thing and the nicest airport to use with frequent connections by low-cost airlines to Europe.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 7, posted (6 years 7 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3385 times:
Quoting Mhodgson (Reply 2): Manx2 have applied for slots, and would probably operate the route with a J31 - whether or not they will (ever) get them remains to be seen!
So, they should get their first choice just because?
Why not go to Paris of Liverpool? Why not MAN? Why should LHR slots be used for such silliness? Because the people want access to "their airport of choice in the UK's capital?"
If the Airport authority wants to be taken seriously when it comes to their claims about restrictions, they should politely remind Manx2 that their people already have plenty of 1 connection options to get to LHR or London, and that a non-stop flight is not a right.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Capital146 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2125 posts, RR: 49 Reply 8, posted (6 years 7 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3338 times:
Quoting Mhodgson (Reply 2): Manx2 have applied for slots, and would probably operate the route with a J31
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8): If the Airport authority wants to be taken seriously when it comes to their claims about restrictions, they should politely remind Manx2 that their people already have plenty of 1 connection options to get to LHR or London, and that a non-stop flight is not a right.
If Manx2 did get access to LHR then it's a fair bet that they would use a considerably larger aircraft than a J31. Something on the lines of a 146/RJ85 would seem likely, given the popularity of the route before BA decided to use the LHR slots for something else.
B747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (6 years 7 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3257 times:
Quoting 8herveg (Thread starter): Apparently there is a 3 year long waiting list for airlines who want to serve Heathrow, but because of slot restrictions, they are unable to.
This information is incorrect. There is no "3 year waiting list". Slots are filed and allocated in line with the IATA seasons at the Schedules Conferences (last one in Vancouver in June - next one will be in Dallas in 3 weeks).
ANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (6 years 7 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3242 times:
AFAIK there are slots available at LHR - they may not be very attractive, but Heathrow is not full, just most of the time. Also I don't think there is a 'list' of airlines awaiting slots at LHR - they need to apply (or trade) for them in the normal manner. If they like what they are offered - fine. If they don't, wait for the next scheduling season. Only 'new entrants' (as defined by the EU) receive any priority, and this is only in respect of access to slots returned to the pool, or newly created (ha!)
Mhodgson From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2002, 5047 posts, RR: 29 Reply 14, posted (6 years 7 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3235 times:
Quoting 8herveg (Reply 12): I was thinking more long-haul carriers? I thought the reason Heathrow does not serve many domestic routes is because it gives/gave all its slots to long-haul routes where they can make money.
AFAIK the airline gets a slot, and it is then down to the airline to choose what to do with it - international or domestic, subject to any bilaterals or restrictions which may apply to a certain airline.
No trees were harmed by this message. However, several million electrons were terribly inconvenienced
Trintocan From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2000, 3191 posts, RR: 4 Reply 17, posted (6 years 7 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2985 times:
Ultimately the reason that the airlines wait extended periods for LHR slots (eg while flying to LGW in the meantime) rather than merely fly to STN boils down to convenience and connections. LHR offers the widest range of connections of any airport in the world and that is a major incentive to airlines to try to fly from there. Furthermore, it is 11 miles West of Central London and has easy transport options such as Heathrow Express and Heathrow Connect trains, the Tube, coaches and a lower taxi fare than from STN, which is 35 miles North North East of the centre. STN also offers few effective connections - while it is FR's major hub, FR does not promote itself as an airline offering connections even among its own flights.
Let's not start with the cramped, overcrowded facilities at LHR which would normally be a deterrent to any would-be operator - the prestige factor overrides all.