Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BA And T5 At LHR  
User currently offlineAlbird87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4531 times:

Hey there just thought of this idea. After the construction of T5 at LHR is complete will this allow more slots into LHR? I have a feeling it is actually due to the runways there at LHR. So when they build the 3rd runway (god only knows when and where there gonna do that!!) I was wondering if BA would move all there London operations to LHR?? I mean at least all there long haul and then domestic flights as then this would allow better transfers (cause if you want to fly to one of there long haul destinations from LGW, your connections onwards from LGW are not as great as they are from LHR).

Does anybody know of what BA's plans are for LGW?? It does seem odd how some caribbean flights leave from LGW and some from LHR also that IAH is from LGW

35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSomeone83 From Norway, joined Sep 2006, 3173 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4431 times:

Quoting Albird87 (Thread starter):
Does anybody know of what BA's plans are for LGW?? It does seem odd how some caribbean flights leave from LGW and some from LHR also that IAH is from LGW

Dont know about the Caribbean flight, but it is "illegal" to fly LHR-IAH according to Bermuda II, hence BA har to operate it from LGW


User currently offlineCleared2Land4 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4420 times:

Also why not DFW-LHR?


United Airlines... "It's Time to Fly."
User currently offlineFlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2048 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4342 times:

IAH, ATL and DFW can't be operated from LHR under Bermuda II non-stop. BA is able to offer a LHR-DTW-IAH service on a 763, primarily for oil executives connecting onto North African and Middle Eastern flights at LHR. PHX and DEN are operated from LHR only because a minimum number of passengers are carried and because BA is the sole carrier on the route. If US was to launch PHX-LGW, or UA to launch DEN-LGW (unlikely), then BA would be forced to switch those flights back to LGW.

MCO and TPA are served from LGW as they are leisure routes, mainly O&D traffic (or fed from domestic destinations). As they are also lower yielding there is no real need for BA to operate the flights from LHR where the slots are better utilised on higher yielding premium routes. The same applies to BA's Caribbean network. Nassau, Grand Cayman and Providenciales are only served from LHR because BA uses the 763 on these services, and all these are LHR based. LGW is now largely dedicated to lesire routes and Southern European routes.

When T5 opens BA has indicated it will be able to slightly expand LHR service, but this is likely to be on longhaul rather than shorthaul routes. The addition of a 3rd runway might see BA switch some shorthaul routes from LGW to LHR, but more likely you'll see an expansion of longhaul flights, with exsiting shorthaul making use of the additional short runway.



Let's Go British Caledonian!
User currently offlineBA787 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 2596 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4305 times:

I think the whole BA london situation is excellent, they would be daft to creat an all LHR base, the split between the two airports is effective and I feel it works well. It also works well in terms of a/c. Correct me if I am wrong, but isnt LGW all 737 except GB and a single A319 whereas LHR is all A32S, with maintenance facilities at each airport for each type

User currently offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2304 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4213 times:

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 3):
When T5 opens BA has indicated it will be able to slightly expand LHR service, but this is likely to be on longhaul rather than shorthaul routes. The addition of a 3rd runway might see BA switch some shorthaul routes from LGW to LHR, but more likely you'll see an expansion of longhaul flights, with exsiting shorthaul making use of the additional short runway.



Quoting Albird87 (Thread starter):
After the construction of T5 at LHR is complete will this allow more slots into LHR? I have a feeling it is actually due to the runways there at LHR. So when they build the 3rd runway (god only knows when and where there gonna do that!!) I was wondering if BA would move all there London operations to LHR??

No Airline can expand at Heathrow with out buying another slot from another airline. So no, BA can not "expand" on their own free will after T5 is built. T5 however will give the advantage of:

A) bringing all BA operations under one roof.
b) creating much better passenger services and facilities.
c) getting BA passengers out of the hassle of boarding via airstair and not a jetway.

Quoting BA787 (Reply 4):
I think the whole BA london situation is excellent, they would be daft to creat an all LHR base, the split between the two airports is effective and I feel it works well. It also works well in terms of a/c.

Absolutely not. The answer is here, in the post:

Quoting Albird87 (Thread starter):
(cause if you want to fly to one of there long haul destinations from LGW, your connections onwards from LGW are not as great as they are from LHR).

Having two airports in one city complicates EVERYTHING. That is why almost all longhaul international carriers, (except CO, DL, US, and AA) have moved all their operations into one airport, Heathrow. I personally think they should demolish LGW completely, and build two more runways at LHR.


User currently offlineBCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 17
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4205 times:

Quoting BA787 (Reply 4):
LGW all 737 except GB and a single A319

LGW is 777 (for long-hauls) and 737 (for short hauls). The A319 makes an occasional appearance when it is rotating from LHR, but BA has none of their own A319 based at LGW.

As previously pointed out, some BA flights (notably LGW-DFW) have to operate from LGW under Bermuda II. I think that BA would love to transfer these services to LHR if they could.

As to the future of BA at LGW, this is anybody's guess. Willie Walsh wants Euro Gatwick to start making a contribution towards BA's profits before there is any fleet renewal. However, the unavailability of suitable slots at LHR means that BA will probably remain at LGW for many years yet.



MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7254 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4199 times:

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 3):
MCO and TPA are served from LGW as they are leisure routes, mainly O&D traffic (or fed from domestic destinations). As they are also lower yielding there is no real need for BA to operate the flights from LHR where the slots are better utilised on higher yielding premium routes. The same applies to BA's Caribbean network. Nassau, Grand Cayman and Providenciales are only served from LHR because BA uses the 763 on these services, and all these are LHR based.

Yes. And the four aircraft used on the LGW Caribbean and US leisure routes are high density 772s configured for 283 passengers (J40 / W24 / M219) (with 3 crew rest seats). This fleet used to comprise three aircraft (with the fourth, G-VIIT. having been transferred relatively recently) that after delivery were leased by BA to AML (Airline Management Ltd), a joint venture of BA and Flying Colours Group. AML operated them on these routes in BA livery with a high density 383 passenger configuration (J28 / M355). When the JV was discontinued the seating density was reduced to 337 (J42 / M295) before the current configuration was adopted.

By the way the rest of the BA 772 fleet is split into two, some aircraft having their cabins configured in three classes - J36 / W24 / M215 (total 275) - and the rest in four - F14 / J48 / W40 / M122 (total 224).


User currently offlineSeattleFlyer From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 154 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4149 times:

Quoting BA787 (Reply 4):
I think the whole BA london situation is excellent, they would be daft to creat an all LHR base, the split between the two airports is effective and I feel it works well.

This does not work well for many connections to Europe from overseas. Especially when you have to transfer between LHR to LGW to make your next flight. Bags cannot be checked through to destination and it adds several hours to minimum connection times. From my point of view, BA would be well served to consolidate all operations to LRH - if only there were room at LRH and Bermuda II was abolished!


User currently offlineTheginge From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 1126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4149 times:

I don't think BA will leave Gatwick anytime in the near future as if they did it would leave Gatwick to become even more Orange.

I don't think BA would let Easyjet have that much dominance at somewhere like Gatwick as it would do even more damage to their short haul routes than it is now!


User currently offlineSketty222 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1775 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4097 times:

Quoting Theginge (Reply 9):
I don't think BA would let Easyjet have that much dominance at somewhere like Gatwick as it would do even more damage to their short haul routes than it is now!

At the end of the financial year 05/06 I read somewhere that BA were cheaper overall than Easyjet.

BA are far superior to Easyjet and as you say, they would never give them the chance to become dominant at LGW

Lee



There's flying and then there's flying
User currently offlinePlanesarecool From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 4119 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4070 times:

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 5):
No Airline can expand at Heathrow with out buying another slot from another airline

Not necessarily. There are still 'spare' slots available. BA also have a few unused slots which they can use for new flights, and they can also use slots currently on short haul flights for new long haul flights.

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 5):
I personally think they should demolish LGW completely

You clearly don't know much about aviation in the UK then.

Quoting Albird87 (Thread starter):
(god only knows when and where there gonna do that!!)

There's no doubt where it'll go - to the North, between the airport and the M4 motorway.


User currently offlineLGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4062 times:

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 5):
I personally think they should demolish LGW completely, and build two more runways at LHR.

Oh dear. In an ideal world it would be great if BA could have almost all long hauls and feeding/high yielding short hauls into LHR and LGW can operate as a stand alone airport, similar to how it does now basically low yielding short hauls, leisure routes, domestics freeing up LHR slots and some Caribbean/US routes which have little or no feeding traffic bar a few from domestic pax which primarily target the O&D market and LGW serves a large, often affluent market in the SE of England and to a degree London. Especially given how awful LHR is to get to for so many people.

Leaving LGW would be crazy and a bad idea, I am not saying that because I am biased but because in reality it would make little sense to pulll the whole operation, would be nice if, with open skies BA could choose the routes they wanted to operate with complete freedom but I would be very disappointed and surprised if BA left LGW alltogether, EZY would think all their christmases have come at once if that happened.

As for Mr Walsh wanting LGW to add profits to the BA pot before a fleet renwel, I see his POV and don't completely disagree but it's a vicious circle, the older out s/h fleet becomes and expecially with EZY operating such a modern fleet it hinders our competitiveness, in my view the LGW eurofleet need short term pain and investment to set the operation up well in the long run.

[Edited 2007-01-08 20:29:15]

User currently offlineHumberside From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 4914 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4041 times:

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 3):
The addition of a 3rd runway might see BA switch some shorthaul routes from LGW to LHR, but more likely you'll see an expansion of longhaul flights, with exsiting shorthaul making use of the additional short runway.

Of course that is dependent how many slots BA would get on the new runway. Anyone know how they would be allocated, especially with the complication of some flights moving to the new runway with the new slots being created on the existing runways

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 5):
T5 however will give the advantage of:

A) bringing all BA operations under one roof.

I thought all Spain and Italy flights would be moved to T3 on B757's, or is that temporary?



Visit the Air Humberside Website and Forum
User currently offlineMacilree From New Zealand, joined Dec 2006, 243 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3981 times:

Those interested in the current situation with respect to slots and terminal capacity at LHR and other major UK airports will find the Airport Coordination Limited web site has relevant information. The company is responsible for slot allocation in the UK. The web site also has other information like charts of aircraft movements by aircraft type.


John Macilree
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2809 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3956 times:

Forget BA. BD is the carrier to use. I should know. I've taken one flight with them, which was good, while out of the countless BA flights I've taken, some have been good and some have been bad. So on average, BD is doing better.

But the important thing is that BD's A319s look the greatest.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Remi Dallot



User currently offlineTheginge From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 1126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3930 times:

I think the Oz flights will be out of T3 as that is where Qantas will be, that is what I last heard anyway.

Most of the time the only spare slots available don;t fit to make pairs, which you need to run in and out of LHR. If you are based at LHR you need a departure and arrival and if not then the other way round.
Airlines having spare slots all the time is rare as you have to use them 80% of the time or you lose them, unless there are circumstances beyond the airlines control, for instance something closing the destination airport that the slot is being used for.

There are ways of increasing long haul by sacrificing a couple of short haul slot pairs and then playing around with the slots to make them fit again.

Looking at the above site for a Friday in Feb there are no departure slots avilable from 0600z to 2100z and also no arrival slots between 0500z so trying to fit in another service is near on impossible!
If Heathrow became 24 hours then there would be many slots freed up, but can;t see that happening!


User currently offlineTCXDegsy From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2006, 510 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3917 times:

Quoting Glom (Reply 15):
Forget BA. BD is the carrier to use. I should know. I've taken one flight with them, which was good, while out of the countless BA flights I've taken, some have been good and some have been bad. So on average, BD is doing better.

It's hardly a fair comparison or average to compare "countless" to "one", is it?



next flights: BA1441 0566 0581 1446 EDI-LHR-MXP-LHR-EDI
User currently offlineBA787 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 2596 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3906 times:

Quoting Glom (Reply 15):
But the important thing is that BD's A319s look the greatest.

Im sure thats whats on every passengers mind when they rate an airline and book a flight  Yeah sure

Tom


User currently offlineLGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3892 times:

Quoting Glom (Reply 15):
Forget BA. BD is the carrier to use. I should know. I've taken one flight with them, which was good, while out of the countless BA flights I've taken, some have been good and some have been bad. So on average, BD is doing better.

But the important thing is that BD's A319s look the greatest.

and that's why I love a.net  Yeah sure


User currently offlineSpeedbird2155 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 864 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3802 times:

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 5):
No Airline can expand at Heathrow with out buying another slot from another airline. So no, BA can not "expand" on their own free will after T5 is built. T5 however will give the advantage of:

A) bringing all BA operations under one roof.
b) creating much better passenger services and facilities.
c) getting BA passengers out of the hassle of boarding via airstair and not a jetway.

T5 will indeed offer better facilities and services, but all of BA operations will not fit in T5 hence the use of T3 (and possibly others) and also not all aircraft at T5 will be served by a jetway and passengers will continue to board by stairs. LHR simply does not have enough room to provide facilities for every aircraft to have a jetway.

Quoting Humberside (Reply 13):
I thought all Spain and Italy flights would be moved to T3 on B757's, or is that temporary?

This is correct, along with the JSA flights to Australia. There will however be more details as to the allocation of BA flights at LHR after 2008 that has yet to be announced. Not all of it will please everyone.


User currently offlineBritPilot777 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1075 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3770 times:

Quoting Theginge (Reply 16):
I think the Oz flights will be out of T3 as that is where Qantas will be, that is what I last heard anyway.

QF and BA flights to Australia will go to Terminal 3 once Terminal 5 opens, as will the Spanish routes. Everything else will move over in phases to Terminal 5 once it opens in March 2008.

BritPilot777



Forever Flight
User currently offlineTLVFred From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 156 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3659 times:

Will MIA move over from T3 a well then?

User currently offlineTristarSteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3930 posts, RR: 34
Reply 23, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3557 times:

The Miami flights will move in on opening day.

see this thread.

BA Move To T5 At LHR To Be Staged. (by TristarSteve Sep 21 2006 in Civil Aviation)


User currently offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2304 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 3512 times:

Quoting Humberside (Reply 13):
Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 5):
T5 however will give the advantage of:

A) bringing all BA operations under one roof.

I thought all Spain and Italy flights would be moved to T3 on B757's, or is that temporary?

Spain and Italy will be T3 until T5C is built. Once that happens, just the SYD flights and the British airways subsidiary, BMED, will be at T3.

Quoting Speedbird2155 (Reply 20):
T5 will indeed offer better facilities and services, but all of BA operations will not fit in T5 hence the use of T3 (and possibly others) and also not all aircraft at T5 will be served by a jetway and passengers will continue to board by stairs. LHR simply does not have enough room to provide facilities for every aircraft to have a jetway.

Well, as stated, Just the 2x daily SYD and the BMED flights will not be in T5.
By the looks of this picture:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Massey


It seems only 2 "non-jetway" gates at each concourse, leaving a total of 4. (plus maybe a couple at T5A). This means that the planes which stay at Heathrow for a long time can be towed to these spaces to wait. When it is time to leave, they are towed back to the jetway gate to reload. So, if not too many flights overlap, BA could manage having an all-jetway operation at LHR.


25 AIR MALTA : What will happen to GB airways flights. They serve Morocco, Portugal and Spain from LHR. Will they all move to T5 or split the flights between T5 and
26 SapphireLHR : This is not quite correct, as there will still be a number "remote" stands that will have to use airstairs. T5A will have 4 remotes, T5B will have 2
27 Speedbird2155 : From the most recent information, it appears that a much longer transition period is being considered. The exact details will be known in a few weeks
28 VV701 : If by 'competitiveness' you mean economic competitiveness this is not necessarily true. This is because aircraft have a high capital or rental cost t
29 LGWspeedbird : There should be a decision made soon on the fleet renewal as I think a deadline was set for spring 2007. I think Mr Walsh know's what he wants to do
30 AIR MALTA : I don't know if they have a plan for LGW. They are axing routes, adding others which are odd. LGW seems to be dedicated to point to point holiday rou
31 BA787 : Thats true, Ive noticed that a ot of the LGW flights are holiday based, LHR still has its fair share, but I dont see as many business flights at LGW.
32 Theginge : I wonder if GB Airways will end up doing more of BA's Gatwick routes as a way of cutting costs from the mainline operation? BA would still have a shor
33 Shamrock_747 : BA's shorthaul Gatwick operation already has a very low cost base compared to the rest of the airline, at least in terms of cabin crew complements/pa
34 AIR MALTA : But are there any terms or conditions with those franchise agreements : if GT decides to stop flying for BA, will it go away with all these routes or
35 BCAL : AFAIK the routes and licences belong to GT. Therefore if the BA franchise was to end, GT has the right to continue operations on the routes with thei
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
BA Move To T5 At LHR To Be Staged. posted Thu Sep 21 2006 18:47:18 by TristarSteve
BA To Use T5 At LHR posted Thu Nov 6 2003 13:25:58 by Aussie747
Connecting From BA To AA At LHR posted Tue Jul 11 2006 23:43:18 by RJpieces
Observation Deck Included In T5 At LHR? posted Sat Apr 22 2006 00:56:39 by Springbok295
BA LAX Flights At LHR T1? posted Thu Feb 23 2006 17:47:44 by IFEMaster
Jet Airways And Sahara At LHR posted Sun Jan 22 2006 16:50:21 by B742
BMI: Business Class Shorthaul And Lounges At LHR posted Tue Mar 8 2005 01:49:43 by Ansett767
Finnair To Use T5 At LHR? posted Mon Feb 28 2005 15:40:21 by Richardw
BA Widebody Ops At LHR posted Tue Dec 21 2004 19:59:50 by Iowa744fan
Is There Wlan At BA's F Class Lounge At LHR T1? posted Sun Dec 5 2004 12:20:30 by Mozart