Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
LGW Vs LHR: What Is The Deal?  
User currently offlineCentrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 20
Posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7224 times:

This IS a case of ignorance. I have never been to the UK and so I have no clue but am curious. When one is curious, always good to ask questions.

What is the deal between airlines being able to fly into Gatwick or Heathrow? I am not talking the Bermuda II here.
But why do airlines want to fly into Heathrow over Gatwick?
Why is Heathrow so appealing?
Stigma?
Is it closer to the City center?
Connections?
Good name recognition (thank you movies)?
Cheaper?

[Edited 2007-04-21 02:54:23]


Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCXB744 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 218 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7122 times:

"But why do airlines want to fly into Heathrow over Gatwick?" Location, Location, Location. Heathrow is located off the M25 with easy access from surrounding London, especially the West and North. (If you call the M25 loaded with traffic doing 25 MPH easy.) Gatwick is to the south of London.
"Why is Heathrow so appealing?" Quicker connections into Downtown London, only 15 min. I believe its 30 min from LGW.
"Stigma?" No
"Is it closer to the City center?" Yes
"Connections?" If you want to transfer between major legacy airlines(i.e. BA) then Heathrow, if LCC then Gatwick.
"Good name recognition (thank you movies)?" Some what
"Cheaper?" No, slots are prime real estate at LHR.



What is it? It's A 747-400, but that's not important right now.
User currently offlineEvan767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2957 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7118 times:

Taking the Gatwick Express from Gatwick to the city is a pain. I remember though when looking at subway maps in London, the subway goes to Heathrow. That, IMO, is a huge plus.


The proper term is "on final" not "on finals" bud...
User currently offlineCentrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7057 times:

So if we were to compare it to cities around the world with multiple airports what would this me like?

LGW is to ???
LHR is to ???



Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
User currently offlineEvan767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2957 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7023 times:

Quoting Centrair (Reply 3):
LGW is to ???
LHR is to ???

Location wise (ignoring size):
LGW is to JFK
LHR is to LGA

LGW is to IAD
LHR is to DCA

LGW is to NRT
LHR is to HND

You get the picture.



The proper term is "on final" not "on finals" bud...
User currently offlineLAXspotter From India, joined Jan 2007, 3650 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7013 times:

Quoting Evan767 (Reply 4):
LGW is to JFK
LHR is to LGA

LGW is to IAD
LHR is to DCA

LGW is to NRT
LHR is to HND

What is your rationale?

For me its CDG = LHR
Paris Beauvais = Gatwick



"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" Samuel Johnson
User currently offlineRivet42 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 818 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6969 times:

From a passenger point of view, the whole LGW v LHR thing is a matter of perspective. For example, I live in West London, so getting to LHR is just easier. LHR is also closer to central London, therefore it is cheaper to get to (if you compare the Underground to LHR with the non-express trains to LGW). On the other hand they both have a dedicated express train service, similar in price, and if I am flying into London and want to get to the financial district (what we call "The City"), then actually LGW is more convenient, because fast trains take you directly to a number of stations in the city, whereas from LHR you have to change on the Underground (and it takes a lot longer) or you have to take the Heathrow Express to Paddington, which is absolutely no use for The City whatsoever.

For example, if you are at the London Stock Exchange, and need to fly to, say, New York, then to get to LHR, it's either a bank-breaking taxi fare (approx USD100 to the airport), or a shorter but excrutiatingly slow taxi ride across central London to Paddington, then 15 minutes on the express, or take the underground from St Pauls station to Holborn, and change for the line out to LHR, taking at least 60 minutes (and usually standing room only during rush-hour)... For LGW, you have a 5-minute walk to City Thameslink mainline station, which has frequent semi-express trains direct to LGW, taking around 35-40 minutes.

From an airline point of view, LHR is simply ahead because it is bigger, allegedly the busiest international airport in the world, and all those other flights and destinations provide an unparalleled market of potential transfer passengers. I'm not so sure how much of a difference that makes for airlines from, say, Asia and Africa, but for airlines operating across the Atlantic, you really want to be at LHR, in order to tap into the extremely lucrative premium cabin market, with frequent connections to just about everywhere in Europe, and beyond. With only one runway, LGW just can't compete with that. LGW has traditionally been the home of holiday charter flights, and in my view it has never really been able to shake off that image. People perceive LHR as being more geared towards the business traveller, even if in reality it's not much more so than LGW.

PhiL P



I travel, therefore I am.
User currently offlineBCALBOY From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 102 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6884 times:

Quoting Evan767 (Reply 2):
Taking the Gatwick Express from Gatwick to the city is a pain. I remember though when looking at subway maps in London, the subway goes to Heathrow. That, IMO, is a huge plus.

Puzzled by this comment. Lgw Express is an excellent service....departs every 15mins and takes 30mins..non-stop
into London/Victoria...its got airline style seats and the carriages are designed to accomodate psgrs with
luggage. The only downside is the cost ..its abt $30 one-way.

The Underground from LHR is not nearly so comfortable . There are abt 17 stops between LHR and Piccadilly Circus.
The carriages are not designed for psgrs with luggage...the tubes get very full and this makes it even more difficult to manage baggage without upsetting others....some of the stations are very deep and don-t have lifts so psgr have
to exit the tubes on to sometimes very crowded platforms and navigate their way thru the crowds with bags
and then manage these up very long escalators and then up steps to get on to the street .Only +ive I can see
is the cost ...abt $8.00 ow.

LHR express is similar to LGW express every 15mins and takes 15mins ...carraiges designed for psgrs
with baggage and cost abt the same as LGW.

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 6):
LGW has traditionally been the home of holiday charter flights, and in my view it has never really been able to shake off that image. People perceive LHR as being more geared towards the business traveller, even if in reality it's not much more so than LGW

This is certainly the case. LHR is virtually 100% scheduled flights while the main Tour Operators and their in-house Charter airlines operate from LGW ( plus Ltn and Stn ). Nowadays Low Cost ,particularly Easyjet are significant operators @ LGW.


Historically LGW struggled to attract foreign national carriers .So while LH,AF,SK,KL,.SR(LX) matched BA
frequencies @ LHR , they largely avoided LGW . LH (LGW/FRA) , AF (CDG ) , KL (AMS) introduced
services briefly in the 80s but quickly withdrew due to losses. LGW depended largely on the UK
independents British Caledonian, Dan-Air ,Air Europe to provide a scheduled network and the fact
that they have all disappeared speaks for itself regarding LGW profitablity.

As result LGW frequencies were vastly inferior to LHR on the main routes and its freq which attracts the business
traveller.On FRA for e.g . BA /LH probably offer 16 flts per day @ LHR , LGW had 2 or 3/day....if you turned up at LGW and yr flt was canx or delayed you could be stranded for hours or even have to travel to LHR...while @ LHR
you could jump on the competitor or the next flt an hour or so later. Similarly if you are connecting from a delayed longhaul arrival you may face a 6hr wait for the next connection or even up on a coach on the M25 to LHR to make yr connection....not very pleasant when ypou are feeling tired after a LHL flight !


BA have said that just simply switching a service to LHR FM LGW has a dramatic impact in average yield as
result of improved business mix and this follows thru to profitability.

The range of connections is vastly better at LHR and this further contributes to better profitaability @ LHR.


This is why all airlines want to fly from LHR even though it is more congested and LGW is a nicer airport for the psgr to travel thru.


User currently onlineIADCA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1293 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6866 times:

Quoting Evan767 (Reply 4):
LGW is to IAD
LHR is to DCA

No. No. No no no no no.

The relative difference is incredible. DCA is 15 minutes from the downtown on the train, which costs bucks max in rush hour. IAD is a 30-45 minute, 35-dollar cab ride. DCA is easy from downtown, IAD moderately difficult. A much more apt comparison would be IAD and BWI. Neither LHR or LGW is tremendously convenient to downtown London; DCA's equivalent in location is more roughly LCY.


User currently offlineStylo777 From Germany, joined Feb 2006, 2978 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6831 times:

Quoting BCALBOY (Reply 7):
LGW had 2 or 3/day.

currently there are no flights between FRA and LGW only FRA and LCY which I suppose you meant.


User currently offlineAlangirvan From New Zealand, joined Nov 2000, 2106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6817 times:

LHR is regarded as better for transfers, but do airline alliances change that? If you want to transfer from BA European service to BA or oneworld Longhaul service, there is no competition, but for CO/DL/NW the hubs of their European partners will give them a lot of transfer options. If CO wants to fly a passenger from Houston to Turin, will they fly the person to LHR and put them onto a BA flight, or use CDG or AMS and put them onto AF/KL. Or does SkyTeam do transfers at LHR?

If transfers are not the point, then there is the shorter ride into London. And when people say London Airport, they mean Heathrow.


User currently offlineSteve332 From Ireland, joined Feb 2007, 116 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6794 times:

Quoting Stylo777 (Reply 9):
Quoting BCALBOY (Reply 7):
LGW had 2 or 3/day.

currently there are no flights between FRA and LGW

He meant they used to have those flights, they were disbanded a few years ago.


User currently offlineKevin777 From Denmark, joined Sep 2006, 1165 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6740 times:

Quoting LAXspotter (Reply 5):
For me its CDG = LHR
Paris Beauvais = Gatwick

Oh come on..! BVA = Kent Airport or something.. nothing like LGW to London

Kevin777  Smile



"I was waiting for you at DFW, but you must have been in LUV" CPH-HAM-CPH CR9
User currently offlineTristarSteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4015 posts, RR: 34
Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6646 times:

Before 9/11 we had flights to LHR and LGW from ARN. Both offered the same business class service.
In the morning and evening they left at the same time.
We carried an average of 10 C class pax to LGW, and 40 C class to LHR in the morning, and 10 C class to LGW and 100 C class to LHR in the evening. After 9/11 we had to cut flights. Which one would you cut?


User currently offlineHumberside From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 4922 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6592 times:

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 6):
On the other hand they both have a dedicated express train service, similar in price, and if I am flying into London and want to get to the financial district (what we call "The City"), then actually LGW is more convenient, because fast trains take you directly to a number of stations in the city, whereas from LHR you have to change on the Underground (and it takes a lot longer) or you have to take the Heathrow Express to Paddington, which is absolutely no use for The City whatsoever.

Crossrail, when it is finally built, will greatly improve connections from LHR to the City (and Docklands) though

Quoting BCALBOY (Reply 7):
The Underground from LHR is not nearly so comfortable . There are abt 17 stops between LHR and Piccadilly Circus.

My guess is that most people using the underground to LHR are airport workers from Hounslow etc and not passengers



Visit the Air Humberside Website and Forum
User currently offlineFlipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1575 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6541 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Humberside (Reply 14):
My guess is that most people using the underground to LHR are airport workers from Hounslow etc and not passengers

I found that a lot of people have been on it when i used it.

I think that one of the reasons that LHR has more flights is its position, for most people in england LGW is a nightmare to get to because of having to get round london.

Fred


User currently offlineSwiftski From Australia, joined Dec 2006, 2701 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6538 times:

Quoting Humberside (Reply 14):
most people using the underground to LHR are airport workers

D'oh.

Go there and look at all the people. It's always, and I mean always, rammed with travellers.


User currently offlineShuggie From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2007, 120 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6522 times:

It's worth remembering that LHR serves as the largest airport for the whole of Great Britain and to an extent is our main airport, it's proximity to the M25 is a definite bonus in this, along with it's being on the north side of London. LGW does a good job of serving the city itself and people on the south coast but it is a lot more difficult to get to for everybody else (unless they are flying in which case it makes no difference).

Popularity breeds popularity, LHR is the busier airport and so is going to be more attractive to airlines seeking new rotes as it offers more potential connections, therefore it becomes more popular still and so on. I don't suppose this is any different to other major airports.

LGW is also disadvantaged going forward as it cannot expand beyond it's current two terminals and one runway. A recent attempt to get a second runway at LGW was met with massive opposition and the plan was eventually changed to a second runway at STN and it'll be interesting to see if they eventually take the crown as London's second airport.

(I'm not really adding anything that hasn't already been said but I wanted to get my first post out of the way  Silly )


User currently offlineGFFgold From Indonesia, joined Feb 2007, 443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6513 times:

If you particularly want to go to London as your final destination then there is frankly not much in it between LHR and LGW as regards public transport. In my own (limited) experience, however, I'd say it takes on average longer to get through LHR both for arrivals and departures as LGW is more compact. Also don't worry if you miss the view on the way into LHR because you'll inevitably circle round again a few more times! LCY is a little peach of an airport, but heaven help you if you need to transfer between London airports - always a nightmare.

User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6492 times:

Heathrow versus Gatwick is a debate that rages in every forum, ranging from airliners.net chatrooms to IATA conferences.

LHR and LGW have shown themselves over time to be equivalent vis-a-vis ability to draw traffic from the London O&D market. The difference however is that LHR has the ability to draw higher yielding traffic, mainly on the strength of its network accessibility.

Going forward, LHR will always remain a premium airport by virtue of being the "hub" airport, while LGW will become more of the airport catering for O&D (carriers catering to VFR/vacation/LCC traffic) and if properly developed, intermodal traffic.

LGW has the benefit of having a mainline railway station on property and that will undoubtedly develop into the preferred means of domestic transit in the next decade as focus on "green" transportation and airport congestion grows.


User currently offlineBCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 16
Reply 20, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6403 times:

Like already posted above, location is perhaps the prime reason why LHR is the preferred London airport for the majority of passengers and therefore for the airlines.

LGW is south of London and therefore difficult to get to if you live on the north side of London, or to the north and west of England. LHR is to the west and equally accessible from north and south London. LHR also sits on the motorway network at a much more convenient location (M4/M25 junction and close to the M40) whereas when you come off the M1 at the M25 Gatwick is another 50 or more miles further.

From the centre of London:
  • LHR is approximately 17 miles (average car journey time 45-60 minutes) and LGW is 32 miles (60-90 minutes)
  • LHR has the Heathrow Express service to London Paddington (15 minutes) and is also on the Piccadilly line of the London Underground (average journey time 55 minutes, stopping en route at 17 stations).
  • LGW is located on the main London Brighton railway line and there is a dedicated Gatwick Express service to London Victoria (30 minutes) as well as services operated by other rail companies including First Capital Connect who operate services from LGW to several City stations.
LHR has two runways whereas LGW is probably the world's busiest single runway airport.

LGW also handles a large volume of charter/IT flights which LHR does not. Although the total percentage of charter flights has decreased over the past few years, back in the pre-1970s LGW was regarded primarily as the principal airport for the "bucket and spade" brigade (i.e. passengers on an IT) and this has forever tarnished LGW's reputation. As the number of charter flights decreased, there was an increase in flights operated by LCCs (principally U2 who is now the second-largest airline at LGW in terms of number of daily flights) which has also resulted in LGW being regarded as the "poor man's" airport.

Quoting BCALBOY (Reply 7):
LGW depended largely on the UK
independents British Caledonian, Dan-Air ,Air Europe to provide a scheduled network and the fact
that they have all disappeared speaks for itself regarding LGW profitablity.

As a general rule a full-service operation at LGW with a fare structure that is identical to a similar operation at LHR produces a 10% lower load factor. Similarly, on average, a scheduled service at LGW generates a 20% lower revenue and results in an up to 25% lower yield than a comparable service at LHR.

British Caledonian did not disappear due to LGW's profitability. They disappeared (or rather, like Dan-Air, were taken over by BA) because of the UK's Government's reluctance (at that time) to live up to the spirit of the "Second Force" aviation policy through concrete deeds, the UK Government's conflict of interest as (then) sole owner of BA as well as the regulator for all British airlines, and other politics of the skies (i.e. privately-owned airlines providing scheduled services in competition with government-owned flag carriers, highly restricted bilateral air service agreements etc.



MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
User currently offlineHT From Germany, joined May 2005, 6525 posts, RR: 23
Reply 21, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6375 times:

@ Shuggie: Welcome to A.net !

Quoting Shuggie (Reply 17):
LHR ... being on the north side of London.

Umpf ? "LHR NORTH of London " ? Last time I checked a map. it was dead center WEST of London ...  Wink
-HT



Carpe diem ! Life is too short to waste your time ! Keep in mind, that today is the first day of the rest of your life !
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6313 times:

Quoting Shuggie (Reply 17):
It's worth remembering that LHR serves as the largest airport for the whole of Great Britain and to an extent is our main airport, it's proximity to the M25 is a definite bonus in this, along with it's being on the north side of London. LGW does a good job of serving the city itself and people on the south coast but it is a lot more difficult to get to for everybody else (unless they are flying in which case it makes no difference).



Quoting BCAL (Reply 20):
LGW is south of London and therefore difficult to get to if you live on the north side of London, or to the north and west of England. LHR is to the west and equally accessible from north and south London. LHR also sits on the motorway network at a much more convenient location (M4/M25 junction and close to the M40) whereas when you come off the M1 at the M25 Gatwick is another 50 or more miles further.

From looking at maps, it is readily apparent that LHR can draw extensively from traffic.

Quoting B747-437B (Reply 19):
LHR and LGW have shown themselves over time to be equivalent vis-a-vis ability to draw traffic from the London O&D market. The difference however is that LHR has the ability to draw higher yielding traffic, mainly on the strength of its network accessibility.

A lot of businesses have chosen to have office complexes out near LHR due to its status as being the primary gateway with the best connections, as well as the hub of the principal UK airline.

Quoting BCAL (Reply 20):
British Caledonian did not disappear due to LGW's profitability. They disappeared (or rather, like Dan-Air, were taken over by BA) because of the UK's Government's reluctance (at that time) to live up to the spirit of the "Second Force" aviation policy through concrete deeds, the UK Government's conflict of interest as (then) sole owner of BA as well as the regulator for all British airlines, and other politics of the skies (i.e. privately-owned airlines providing scheduled services in competition with government-owned flag carriers, highly restricted bilateral air service agreements etc.

Lack of which concrete deeds? Underinvestment in facilities at LGW and ground transport?



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineJplane1 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 1 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6305 times:

As a frequent user of LHR in my view the Underground is a good way of getting to LHR if you are near a Piccadilly line station in the centre of London. LGW is not as convenient from central London and is a real problem to get to unless you live south of London if you are a UK resident. This combined with all the reasons already stated means LHR is much busier.

My first post out of the way!


User currently offlineShuggie From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2007, 120 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 6211 times:

Quoting HT (Reply 21):

Umpf ? "LHR NORTH of London " ? Last time I checked a map. it was dead center WEST of London ... Wink
-HT

Good Point!  blush 


25 EKSkycargo370 : LHR is possibly the worst airport in the world.The security restrictions put in place are a joke,as they do not have the staff to cope with it.As an e
26 VV701 : Many of the reasons given for the popularity of LHR both as an international hub and in preference to LGW that are given above seem to be logical but
27 N62NA : LHR=JFK LGW=EWR
28 Post contains images Shuggie : I agree LCY=LGA Well, sort of....!
29 BA1985 : The one thing to definately bear in mind also is that LGW is a lots more popular and in mnay ways convienient that LHR...I am based in the SE and LGW
30 ChinaClipper40 : Speaking purely from the perspective of a North American frequent flyer, I must say that I much prefer LGW. If my trip ends in London, I have the spee
31 Richardw : London's best airport for leaving the city for the wekend is L**, and *OU isn't bad either, some of the other airport operators are providing a shocki
32 Evan767 : Ok dude, calm down. I got it wrong, one "no", though still rude, is enough. Thanks. Well, for me it's all about money. Though I must say I have never
33 HT : Very good historic overview ! But while this very well explains the situation for long term residents at LHR, why is it that new airlines that just h
34 BY188B : A tip from a seasoned traveller, next time you use LGW, use the Southern trains service, it uses the exact same route as the Gatwick express, is only
35 Evan767 : Thanks! I'll remember that!
36 Goodbye : What about connections *between* the airports? Say you have a flight arriving in LGW, then you have to take a flight from LHR (or vice-versa). How wou
37 Post contains links HT : LGW To LHR Transfers (by Aa787823 Apr 21 2007 in Aviation Polls & Prefs) -HT
38 Post contains links VV701 : Today LHR offers flights to most major cities in the world. There are exceptions, like a weakness in Latin America and major US cities not served bec
39 Flighty : LAX and NRT are also basically in that category. Also, depending on your views, is CDG.
40 VV701 : LAX? Yes, probably. But NRT is primarily a long haul hub more like DXB. At LHR, FRA, JFK and LAX long haul flights benefit from substantial short hau
41 Post contains images Rivet42 : My turn again...: You are being very optimistic! There is still no clear sign that Crossrail will be completed... I wish! That's definitely not the (s
42 Post contains images HT : The airport hardly can be seen when leaving the train at Luton Parkway (Railway-)Station ...
43 A380US : NO NO NO NO NO to start JFK is one of thetop airlines in the world its in movies much more than Heathrow LGA is much more xpensive and closer to city
44 Post contains images Steeler83 : And aren't they adding another runway or two at LHR IIRC? Man, just from looking at the first few posts here, it looks like LGW is in the middle of n
45 Richardw : LGW to London Victoria or LGW to London Blackfriars is easier than EWR to Madison Sq Gdn.
46 Post contains links HT : While it is the official plan to add a third parallel runway north to the 2 in existance and use, I personally have zero hopes that this will materia
47 Brettbrett21 : Hay! We happen to be perched on top of a hill!
48 Trintocan : An interesting discussion. My 2 cents' worth... Asiana also does Seoul from LHR. LHR certainly wins in terms of connections as well as being BA's bigg
49 VV701 : Yes. Thanks for the correction. I did not consider flights with intermediate stops and aircraft changes as you can get to almost anywhere served by a
50 Rivet42 : Fair point. All I wanted to indicate is that NZ have an intermediate stop, where you might be required to leave the aircraft for an hour or so while
51 BCAL : British Airtours (or rather BEAitrours as it was then known) decided to base their operations at LGW without any outside interference. LGW was in the
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...
What Is The Deal With Citelynx C/s? posted Sat Jun 3 2006 06:31:44 by GREATANSETT
What Is The Deal With DLX? posted Thu Jun 26 2003 15:54:50 by BR715-A1-30
What Is The Deal With Belgian Universal posted Fri Feb 21 2003 17:26:58 by FLYYUL
What Is The Deal With Polish Airlines LOT posted Mon May 7 2001 20:22:41 by PolAir
What Is The Deal With Olympic Airways... posted Sun Feb 25 2001 00:37:31 by Olympic A-340
What Is The Deal With Berlin? posted Tue Dec 5 2000 14:46:20 by LHMark
Aloha VS Hawaiian - What Is The Best? posted Fri Nov 24 2000 02:15:27 by MattNZ
What Is The Deal With United ? posted Fri Apr 30 1999 18:11:44 by Brymon Poacher
What Is The Fate Of VS/BD/LGW As Open Skies Nears? posted Sat Nov 19 2005 18:05:30 by Concorde001
PTV's What Is The Big Deal posted Fri Oct 21 2005 07:35:31 by LongbowPilot