Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
LGW And The Future  
User currently offlineARGinLON From Vatican City, joined Jun 2005, 614 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4693 times:

With open Skies being a reality (please wake me up, I can't believe Bermuda 2 is over) effective MAR08 it may result is the slow disappearance of transatlantic/longhaul services operated by legacy carries with the exception of some leisure destinations (e.g. MCO, LAS).

DL,NW,CO and US will move their services to LHR as soon as they can (I am sure they have secured themselves some slots already) and BA will move all of them (IAH, ATL, DFW, ect) as from day one. However, sooner or later LGW will become a full leisure airport

So what is left for LGW other than the Thomson, MyTravel, Thomas Cook, U2. Monarch and the BA leisure markets?

I already miss the old good days at LGW (BA checking counters at Victoria Station, DL operating MD11s, NW's DC-10s., and BA flying JFK, GRU, CDG, FRA or EZE) so I only see a unexciting future for LGW.

Do you guys remember the full list of longhaul services BA used to operate from LGW?

46 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineIADLHR From Italy, joined Apr 2005, 735 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 4655 times:

I am no so sure that AA will move their RDU-LGW over to LHR. If I am not mistaken their pharmacueitcal clients that fly RDU-LGW regularly prfeer, if I am not mistaken, LGW as it is much closer to their offices. I could be wrong and stand corrected. So if that is true, I wonderf if there will be an AA DFW-LGW , in addition to DFW-LHR,or MIA-LGW so aircrat can be rotated.

User currently offlineVirgin747LGW From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 225 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4550 times:

[quote=ARGinLON,reply=0]DL,NW,CO and US will move their services to LHR as soon as they can (I am sure they have secured themselves some slots already) [/quote

given the recent cut backs of many US airlines if the LGW routes werent popular they would have been discontinued by now, bear in mind there are millions of people living in south east england who would rather fly LGW than LHR so it seems like a poor decision to pull out of LGW.


User currently offlineLHR777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4532 times:

Quoting ARGinLON (Thread starter):
Do you guys remember the full list of longhaul services BA used to operate from LGW?

A few that I have flown in the past...

LGW-CCS, BOG, GRU, EZE, LAX, JFK, SCL.

I'm pretty sure I recall flying those all on BA from LGW in the past. I'm just not sure about LAX, as I think that might have been on a BCal DC-10 (G-DCIO outbound, possibly G-MULL return). I was around 11-12 years old at the time, so my memory is a little vague on this!

Did BA serve PIT from LGW or LHR? I flew it once on G-AWNO, but don't recall where I flew from!


User currently offlineLHR777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4498 times:

This from BA today, regarding the LGW services post-EU open-skies...

Quote:

“We will hold the Government to its word to fight for Britain’s interests if America doesn’t play ball. Though this is a poor agreement for Britain and Europe, we are ready to exploit the new opportunities this agreement gives us for our customers and our business. Our priority will be to move the Gatwick services to Heathrow that have most connecting traffic, such as the Houston route, which serves the oil markets, and give our customers the best possible connections.”

So, it's look like those services with a lot of connecting traffic will move to LHR, as I pretty much expected. This will include IAH (great for LOS/ABV/ACC connecting traffic) and possibly DFW too. I'm not so sure about ATL though, or the Florida/Caribbean destinations.


User currently offlineAirchabum From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 769 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4488 times:

I'm sure that BA and the US carriers will want to move the majority of their longhaul flights to LHR but where are all the slots going to come from? LHR is effectively full so the only way airlines will aquire slots is by finding another airline prepared to sell them, and the prices are going to become so astronomical that it simply won't make economic sense. Will LHR be quite so attractive if half the airlines who feed the longhauls sell their slots and move out? Probably not.

As for LGW yes it may turn into a more leisure dominated airport but the leisure traveller is going much further these days so there will still be plenty of scope for longhaul flights. I fondly remember the days when we used to have the likes of Cathay, Air New Zealand, PAL, etc at LGW but for every carrier that moves to LHR another one moves back so we have airlines like Malev, Air Namibia and Bulgaria Air to add a bit of variety. It's not all bad!  Smile



Biggidy biggidy bong
User currently offlineRampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3106 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4422 times:

I don't see why LGW couldn't maintain a full slate of international services. For instance, New York City has two full international airports, both with connecting opportunities. JFK has more, but EWR is certainly full service. Personally, because I think LHR is a mess, I'd fly to LGW unless business or connection required me to do otherwise.

-Rampart


User currently offlineCOEI2007 From Vanuatu, joined Jan 2007, 1912 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4366 times:

I think CO will keep CLE and some EWR services at LGW. Firstly I dont know they can get enough slots to operate all of their flights ex LHR, plus LGW will give pax a choice!

User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4337 times:

Quoting COEI2007 (Reply 7):
I think CO will keep CLE and some EWR services at LGW. Firstly I dont know they can get enough slots to operate all of their flights ex LHR, plus LGW will give pax a choice!

Sounds good for now, but once CO can acquire enough slots at LHR for its entire London operation, LGW will be history regardless of how CO is spinning it now. IAH will be the first service to move to LHR, then EWR, and finally Cleveland. My guess is that CO will maintain an IAH-EWR-LGW 752 service just as long as the Cleveland flight operates into Gatwick (with this arrangment, all three hubs continue to have Gatwick service......just like the press release says). When a slot is obtained for CLE (at which time the CLE-London flight may upgrade to 764 equipment), its bye-bye Gatwick for CO.

Remember that CO once flew EWR-STN, for years many thought that they would return, but CO did not.....CO would rather focus on one London airport.

I think this logic will be true of most US carriers.......over time, most will move operations from LGW to LHR.


User currently offlineCOEI2007 From Vanuatu, joined Jan 2007, 1912 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4295 times:

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 8):
Sounds good for now, but once CO can acquire enough slots at LHR for its entire London operation, LGW will be history regardless of how CO is spinning it now. IAH will be the first service to move to LHR, then EWR, and finally Cleveland. My guess is that CO will maintain an IAH-EWR-LGW 752 service just as long as the Cleveland flight operates into Gatwick (with this arrangment, all three hubs continue to have Gatwick service......just like the press release says). When a slot is obtained for CLE (at which time the CLE-London flight may upgrade to 764 equipment), its bye-bye Gatwick for CO.

Remember that CO once flew EWR-STN, for years many thought that they would return, but CO did not.....CO would rather focus on one London airport.

I think this logic will be true of most US carriers.......over time, most will move operations from LGW to LHR

Oh, I agree LGW will be a 757 operation eventually. CLE, plus IAH-EWR-LGW is most likely, and then once all of the slots are in place, they'll cut LGW. But thats gonna take awhile!!!!


User currently offlineFdex727 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4239 times:

Hopefully US will at the very least move the CLT flight to LHR. PHL already has BA do they not to LHR

User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11430 posts, RR: 61
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4202 times:

Quoting ARGinLON (Thread starter):
please wake me up, I can't believe Bermuda 2 is over

I know. It really is, in the historical context of global civil aviation, an earth-shattering and momentus event.

Quoting ARGinLON (Thread starter):
effective MAR08 it may result is the slow disappearance of transatlantic/longhaul services operated by legacy carries with the exception of some leisure destinations (e.g. MCO, LAS)

Gatwick will definitely lose most of its longhaul to the U.S., but there will still be some market at Gatwick and I feel confident that Continental, and probably American and possibly Delta, will probably not completely abandon London's second airport. I certainly hope not!

Quoting ARGinLON (Thread starter):
DL,NW,CO and US will move their services to LHR as soon as they can (I am sure they have secured themselves some slots already) and BA will move all of them (IAH, ATL, DFW, ect) as from day one. However, sooner or later LGW will become a full leisure airport

I generally agree. BA will move its remaining business-oriented U.S. Gatwick routes (IAH, DFW and ATL) to Heathrow from day 1. Delta will likely switch all of its flights to Heathrow as soon as it gets slots, while Continental appears to be taking a more phased approach -- stating in their press release today that 1) IAH flights will move to Heathrow first, by June 2008, 2) Newark flights will eventually move there later, and 3) Continental will maintain a presence at Gatwick. Northwest and USAirways -- both with only two daily flights to Gatwick -- should probably be able to find slots through alliance partners in due time -- but as these two carriers have the most minimal presence in the London market, I doubt either is in nearly as much of a hurry as CO or DL. As for the U.S.' existing 'Heathrow 2,' United will probably launch Denver-Heathrow immediately, and I think AA will probably switch its D/FW-London route to Heathrow the instant it can get slots, if for no other reason than because they don't want to be uncompetitive with BA's DFW flight, which will probably move over immediately. Raleigh will probably move over to Heathrow too, eventually, but I believe that AA won't completely leave Gatwick. I think that Gatwick still definitely has a market, and my personal prediction is that AA will move its two existing DFW-London flights (50/51 and 78/79) to Heathrow, and then reinstate the off-and-on third flight, 80/81, as a daily 767 to Gatwick.

Quoting ARGinLON (Thread starter):
BA checking counters at Victoria Station

My, my, the remote check-in counters at Victoria -- that seems like a lifetime ago.

Quoting IADLHR (Reply 1):
I am no so sure that AA will move their RDU-LGW over to LHR.

I think AA will ultimately move RDU-LGW to -LHR. I, too, thought that much of gsk and pharma traffic in RDU and the Research Triangle preferred Gatwick, but was corrected -- by several -- a few months back when I posted that on another thread. Apparently, according to some on A.net, Heathrow is actually closer to where this pharma traffic is going.

Quoting COEI2007 (Reply 7):
I think CO will keep CLE and some EWR services at LGW.

I think CLE will eventually move to Heathrow, but I definitely agree that CO will likely still maintain at least a single daily EWR-LGW flight for the local traffic in the New York area that still wants to go to Gatwick.


User currently offlinePlanesarecool From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 4119 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4128 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 11):
Apparently, according to some on A.net, Heathrow is actually closer to where this pharma traffic is going.

The global HQ of GSK is nearer to LHR, however there is also a reasonably large manufacturing plant in Crawley, just a few miles from LGW.

I don't think the RDU flight will move to LHR - remember that it is profitable however full the flight is, and whichever airport they use, so they don't need to use a valuable LHR slot. Also, there is no direct competition, so anybody needing to fly between London and Raleigh/Durham will most likely use that flight, whichever airport it uses.

Quoting Fdex727 (Reply 10):
Hopefully US will at the very least move the CLT flight to LHR. PHL already has BA do they not to LHR

I can't see them having one flight from LHR and one from LGW. It would be either one or the other, and most likely it would be LHR.


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4089 times:

I'm not sure DL's traffic will necessarily move to LHR. LHR is great if you are connecting through London because of the number of onward flights, but I actually prefer LGW if my destination is London.

I find it less crowded, easier to get in and out of and better in terms of passenger facilities (with the exception of LHR T4). The Gatwick Express gets me into London just 20 minutes later than it takes me to get there from LHR but I don't have to walk what seems like 10 miles to catch the train.

Of course everyone will want to say they serve LHR but given the premium that airlines will have to pay for slots, I'm not sure the move will necessarily make a lot of sense.

[Edited 2007-03-22 19:18:24]

User currently offlineHumberside From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 4917 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4018 times:

LGW is going to loose a lot of US flights

Quoting LHR777 (Reply 4):
So, it's look like those services with a lot of connecting traffic will move to LHR, as I pretty much expected. This will include IAH (great for LOS/ABV/ACC connecting traffic) and possibly DFW too. I'm not so sure about ATL though,

I would expect ATL to be moved. Its an important business destination

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 8):
CO would rather focus on one London airport.

I think thats a mistake. LGW could almost certainly fill at least a once daily B757 to EWR with traffic from the immediate area.

Quoting Planesarecool (Reply 12):
Quoting Fdex727 (Reply 10):
Hopefully US will at the very least move the CLT flight to LHR. PHL already has BA do they not to LHR

I can't see them having one flight from LHR and one from LGW. It would be either one or the other, and most likely it would be LHR.

Agreed. US's London operation is too small to be split across 2 London airports



Visit the Air Humberside Website and Forum
User currently offlineRichardw From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 3746 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3721 times:

If First Choice and TUI merge, they could possibly base themselves in the South Terminal, and if AA and Delta and BA move some long hauls to LHR, then this means more space at the North Terminal, BAA might want to move some airlines from South to North.

BA/GT operated flights less than 3 hours are very likely to go buy on board in economy, with some losing their AA codes.


User currently offlineGFFgold From Indonesia, joined Feb 2007, 443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3703 times:

I previously lived south of London (Brighton) and like a few million others I found LGW a much more convenient airport than the dreaded LHR. So much so that I regularly paid over the top for fares just to avoid the nightmare journey by road or rail and the inevitable chaos (to say nothing of the endless congestion on the taxiway and in the air at times) at LHR. Heck, am I imagining it or did GA fly to LGW years ago?

User currently offlineA340600 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 4105 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3677 times:

Quoting ARGinLON (Thread starter):
So what is left for LGW other than the Thomson, MyTravel, Thomas Cook, U2. Monarch and the BA leisure markets?

I already miss the old good days at LGW (BA checking counters at Victoria Station, DL operating MD11s, NW's DC-10s., and BA flying JFK, GRU, CDG, FRA or EZE) so I only see a unexciting future for LGW.

LGW has some very interesting traffic ex East and Africa, yes the US routes will be a major loss but it wont become a charter hub only.

Quoting Airchabum (Reply 5):
but for every carrier that moves to LHR another one moves back so we have airlines like Malev, Air Namibia and Bulgaria Air to add a bit of variety. It's not all bad!

Exactly, we have some decent carriers.

Quoting Richardw (Reply 15):
BA/GT operated flights less than 3 hours are very likely to go buy on board in economy

I'm not so sure on this one. I don't think BA Y shorthaul will go BOB if LHR doesn't, it'll completely destroy the product. I don't see very long now for BA shorthaul at LGW, I didn't see long before this happened, now even more so. I doubt BA will order anything to replace the 737's and as the leases run out on the -300's/500's the routes will cut down and then i'm sure the -400's will be retired. The industry constantly changes and we've seen this one coming for a long time now. I'm still not sure the US airlines will pull out completely, it would make sense for some routes and airlines to stay.



Despite the name I am a Boeing man through and through!
User currently offlinePlanesarecool From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 4119 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3652 times:

Quoting GFFgold (Reply 16):
Heck, am I imagining it or did GA fly to LGW years ago?

They operated a flight to Gatwick from Denpasar via Bangkok, but it stopped a few years ago.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Graham Hitchen



Like many others have said, i really cannot see Gatwick becoming a ghost town. The spaces left by flights moving up the road will more than likely be filled up by new airlines, routes and increased frequencies.

Virgin won't budge - in fact the increased gate space in the morning might encourage them to open up more leisure routes from Gatwick. BA won't change much, with the exception of the IAH, DFW and maybe ATL flights moving to LHR. The short haul flights will not be cut back.

And who knows, some airlines may use this as an opportunity to sell up some or all of their LHR slots and move to LGW (think Air Baltic, Air Namibia, TAP etc).


User currently offlineSteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9180 posts, RR: 18
Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3643 times:

Quoting LHR777 (Reply 3):
Did BA serve PIT from LGW or LHR? I flew it once on G-AWNO, but don't recall where I flew from!

Both actually... with the LHR service, BA flew a 747 on routings like PIT-BWI-LHR and PIT-PHL-LHR beginning in 1985. This service was actually launched with a Concorde, which I cannot believe! In 1993, the 747 service ended, and was replaced with daily 767 flights on PIT-LGW. This ended in 1999 when US started PIT-LGW. That lasted until 2004, when the US hub was closed.

Nobody has flown transatlantic flights since then. I hope that the axing of Bermuda 2 will bring back service to London from PIT at the very least... US probably will never bring back transatlantic flights. With Bermuda 2 gone, BMI seems like the only hope for PIT ever seeing transatlantic flights.



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlineIcLCY From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 256 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3632 times:

Quoting GFFgold (Reply 16):
am I imagining it or did GA fly to LGW years ago?

Yes they did I flew on their 767 in 1998

LGW-DPS via BKK & CGK - Same a/c & flight number.

DPS-CGK-BTH(Batam)-AMM(Amman)-LGW again same a/c & flight number.


User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7393 posts, RR: 17
Reply 21, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 3567 times:

Of course all the airlines want to operate all of their trans-Atlantic flights out of LHR and shut down their LGW operations as quickly as possible. But hey! Wait a minute. What about their customers? Don't they count? Perhaps some of them want to fly to LGW. Some may actually prefer LGW to LHR.

And isn't time money? Suppose you work for AmEx. Their world-wide HQ is in Manhattan. The HQ for their International Operations (the world excluding the USA and Canada) is in Stag Place just across the road from Victoria Station, the London terminus for the railway line to Gatwick. Operationally their International HQ is in Brighton with outlying offices at Burgess Hill, both south of LGW and both requiring a 50 mile longer drive from LHR or a trip into central London, round the circle line and then back out again down the line through Gatwick Airport station. So surely the preferred route from their south Manhattan office to their Brighton office is Manhattan-EWR-LGW-Brighton and not Manhattan-EWR or JFK-LHR-Paddington-Victoria-Gatwick-Brighton which will add a lot more than two hours to their journey time . Or am I missing something?

Of course one swallow does not make a summer. Of course LHR is a huge international hub and LGW is not. But a lot of O&D trans-Atlantic passengers neither live nor work in central or west London. And even for some of them LGW is the better choice, And AmEx is not the only multi-national employer with a UK centre of gravity much closer to LGW than LHR.

Remember. While you can get away with not offering a service your customers and potential customers may prefer, every time you withdraw an existing service you are certain to upset someone. So before you shut down your ATL-LGW, your RDU-LGW or your EWR-LGW services take a long hard look at from whom you currently make most of your money on those routes.

Indeed I believe - and I would welcome others comments here - that while there is economic sense in BA 'withdrawing' existing trans-Atlantic flights from LGW to its main hub and base at LHR, other airlines, especially the US legacy airlines already serving LGW, could profit from this by sitting tight at LGW (excepting the CO IAH-LGW flight that should be moved to LHR because most of its high yielding traffic is not O&D) and then expanding their services by putting new, incremental flights into LHR. This approach would also have the advantage of limiting the inflation in the cost of LHR slots that is likely if four airlines rush around seeking prime-time LHR slots for all their existing US-LGW flights plus all the new services they want to add


User currently offlineARGinLON From Vatican City, joined Jun 2005, 614 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3509 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 21):
Indeed I believe - and I would welcome others comments here - that while there is economic sense in BA 'withdrawing' existing trans-Atlantic flights from LGW to its main hub and base at LHR, other airlines, especially the US legacy airlines already serving LGW, could profit from this by sitting tight at LGW (excepting the CO IAH-LGW flight that should be moved to LHR because most of its high yielding traffic is not O&D) and then expanding their services by putting new, incremental flights into LHR. This approach would also have the advantage of limiting the inflation in the cost of LHR slots that is likely if four airlines rush around seeking prime-time LHR slots for all their existing US-LGW flights plus all the new services they want to add

CO will probably keep the 757’s in LGW.
LHR slots are pricey and in my opinion having a 752 with only a few business class seats (I believe CO has 16) does not make much sense.


User currently offlineCslusarc From Canada, joined May 2005, 838 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3360 times:

Personally, I think that if CO, DL, NW or US move any of their routes to LHR from LGW they would have to operate any future LHR flights with aircraft like the A333 or B772 or larger. Both CO and DL have a limited supply of this guage of aircraft, restricting the ability of maximize their profit per departure for any future LHR service.


--cslusarc from YWG
User currently offlineN174UA From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 994 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3240 times:

Quoting ARGinLON (Thread starter):
I can't believe Bermuda 2 is over

Bermuda 2 is still the active treaty, and until it's new replacement is ratifed by the U.S. Senate, it remains in effect. The agreements are in place, the EU has approved it, now we just need the Senate to approve it.

As for LGW...I remember flying on a British Caledonian DC-10-30 between LAX and LGW back in August '82. Those were the days...

LHR is congested as it is...and now we're going to see all these US airlines moving their operations there as well, making it even more congested!


25 Steeler83 : Aren't there proposals to expand LHR? Granted there really isn't much room. Too bad the land isn't like the grounds of PIT... thousands of acres avai
26 N174UA : Well, T5 for one will be opening, not sure when. T3 is a DUMP, and I believe T1 or T2 is Shengen-only (within EU). I thought there was a proposal for
27 Ckfred : My father-in law used to fly to London a lot. His travel agent kept trying to route him through one of UA's or AA's hubs to LHR, but he insisted on fl
28 Humberside : The UK is not part of the Shengen treaty AFAIK. Though T1/T2 have traditionally been mostly UK Domestic/European
29 LHR777 : Shouldn't that be "LGW is to LHR as MDW is to ORD"?
30 Steeler83 : I think there is a proposal for a new runway. So, more planes can land. Without any additional gate space, you're going to have those planes just sit
31 COEI2007 : I love how airlines are rushing to serve to LHR!!! In my experience, its a dump. I know its better for connections etc, but from a pax perspective, i'
32 N174UA : I presume they've upgraded the facilities and gate areas since August 1982? Any plans for an additional runway at LGW? I think it's 8/26?
33 A340600 : Yes, the South Terminal has just had a refurb on the departure side, new baggage belts and modern design, bar pier 1, but that's the LCC area. Then a
34 B747-437B : South Terminal is operating so far above capacity at peak hours that it isn't funny anymore. Baggage belt failures are extremely common, the checkin
35 N174UA : When my Dad worked at PDX, he OFTEN said that airports only exist to promote the construction trades, and not promotiing air travel...a lot of that i
36 Jfk777 : Whatever happens with the Americans moving to LHR, most will continue to have a LGW presence just to keep up the capacity. Co from EWR will continue,
37 Humberside : According to todays Sunday Times, BA will move IAH to LHR at the start of open skies. ATL and DFW will follow six months later
38 Arsenal@LHR : Airlines don't fly to airports based on how pretty or functional they are, they will fly where it makes financial and economic sense. And the reality
39 B747-437B : Pretty perhaps not, but functionality is a very key part of an airline's decision to operate to an airport. The startup operational functionality aud
40 Cba : Both are correct. Remember, LHR slots have to come from somewhere, and they will NOT be cheap. LGW service will remain, LHR is still near max capacit
41 AA787823 : I dont really see where all the slots will come from. LHR is full. I dont see how all the carriers flying to LGW can shift to LHR. Dont forget that so
42 Boysteve : Lol, just see the news today!
43 B747-437B : Don't remind me. Ruined my quiet Sunday morning....
44 A340600 : I never said it helped the operation, i'm fully aware of the overcrowded situation of South, I was merely anwering the question put out as to whether
45 Cba : Old-fashioned rules? To my knowledge there are no airports in the US that are restricted in such a way that LHR currently is. Only Airlines X Y and Z
46 MIASkies : I doubt will see MIA-LGW, in the past AA had MIA-LHR and MIA-LGW running at the same time and favored LHR and dropped the MIA-LGW all together. Same
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...
Regional Airlines RFPs And The Future Of Them posted Wed Nov 15 2006 07:39:34 by Apodino
BA Connect - Flybe: BA's 15% Stake And The Future posted Sat Nov 4 2006 19:20:15 by Concorde001
LAN Argentina And The Future Of AR posted Mon Jun 26 2006 19:12:33 by Zudnic
The Oil Crunch And The Future Of LCCs posted Tue Apr 25 2006 04:52:13 by Gnomon
DL And The Future Of Its Fleet (Other Airlines Too) posted Sat Oct 1 2005 17:03:20 by DeltaGuy767
Gmtv / Helios And The Future Of The 737 posted Tue Aug 16 2005 20:02:57 by Goinv
Civil Aviation, Oil Prices, And The Future. posted Sat Mar 12 2005 17:49:28 by Cumulonimbus
The 7E7 And The Future Of Air Travel posted Mon Jun 14 2004 10:40:44 by OD720
FedEx And The Future Of 727 posted Mon Oct 6 2003 00:16:49 by Aviatortj
Air Canada And Robert Milton And The Future posted Sat Oct 6 2001 15:31:43 by Player4keeps