AirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0 Posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1688 times:
London has several airports. With the growth of point to point flights, and use of smaller Long haul aircraft, surely the likes of Stansted and Gatwick should be full of transatlantic flights, for all those who find it easier to use these airports than LHR...
And yet, what do the US carriers desperately want - access to LHR! With open skies, they will move flights to LHR and compete on the main trunk routes to LHR.
BA is embedded at LHR, if it had the slots and terminal space, I'm sure a lot of flights would be transferred from LGW to LHR.
BD is desperate to expand at LHR, despite being able to launch long haul flights from anywhere in the country.
This suggests that given the choice, all major long haul carriers to London want to operate to the major hub, rather than to the 'secondary' airports. Are they missing a trick here? I thought the whole point of the new generation of aircraft like the 787 and A350 was to reduce the need for large planes operating into major hubs like LHR?
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6485 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1640 times:
Quoting AirbusA6 (Thread starter): This suggests that given the choice, all major long haul carriers to London want to operate to the major hub, rather than to the 'secondary' airports. Are they missing a trick here? I thought the whole point of the new generation of aircraft like the 787 and A350 was to reduce the need for large planes operating into major hubs like LHR?
You're missing the fact that LHR is the O&D mecca for airlines servicing the London area.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1611 times:
LHR slots are of value only in that the peak time slots are all taken. Its not that they can't get slots, but that most can't get ones they want.
You WILL see LHR take less of the traffic to Europe as a percentage of total traffic, and even the UK as time goes forward.
More over, right now airlines do NOT have enough airplanes to start more point to point services, much less planes of the right type. CO for example has done very well with p2p 757 flights, but they simply ran out of 757s sooner than they ran out of places to use them. 787 deliveries will IMO quickly start proving that there is plenty of routes for them that bypass hubs and get people to where they want to go in less steps. Most flights should end up only touching one hub at most unless you are going somewhere that is not a popular destination. Very very few double hub flights, and an ever increasing 0 major hub flight route network. In this I count an airport as a hub only if used as a hub. To me if you fly to LHR to go to London, its not a "hub" flight.
IADguy73 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 109 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1604 times:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 2): You're missing the fact that LHR is the O&D mecca for airlines servicing the London area.
I agree. It's all about location, location and location. Especially for business travelers LHR is the most convenient. Even as a tourist/economy flier I think it's a hassle to fly into STN, LTN or LGW unless you are connecting the next day and staying in London overnight. Don't forget Americans prefer convenience over price.