Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Continental And LHR  
User currently offlineADXMatt From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 954 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6781 times:

Hi All,

Continental has already announced 1x daily IAH-LHR next year with open skies.

Are they about to announce 2x daily IAH-LHR and EWR-LHR? Has anyone else heard this?

What would happen to LGW? would LGW only have 1x seasonal service to CLE/EWR? or would LHR be additional lift and LGW remains unchanged? or combination ?

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21478296/

Deals are not finalised yet, but it is understood that of GB Airways' four pairs of slots, two are to be acquired by Continental Airlines of the US, one by British Airways and one by Qatar Airways.

It is understood that Continental is considering opening twice daily services from Heathrow to both Houston and New York Newark with an announcement possibly next week.

The battle for slots has been particularly intense in recent weeks, as airlines prepare for the Toronto conference, which will agree deals in preparation for the start of the next summer season at the end of March.

45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineIluv747400 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 372 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6640 times:

I think Continental would at least keep a daily 757-200 service between Newark and Gatwick.

User currently onlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13743 posts, RR: 61
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6494 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I believe I read they'd still keep their existing IAH-LGW/EWR-LGW service, while CLE-LGW would be seasonal.


"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6469 times:

I believe LGW would still be a CO destination. However, if CO can pick up a few more slots, CO would run CLE-LHR year-round. I highly doubt the traffic is there to run LHR year-round, and a separate LGW as seasonal from CLE. Maybe I'm wrong, with the expansion coming to CLE, but I just can't see it.

Eventually, CLE service to London will be year-round to LHR.


User currently offlineCALMSP From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4047 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6467 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

EWR-LGW service stays on board with 757 service.


okay, I'm waiting for the rich to spread the wealth around to me. Please mail your checks to my house.
User currently offlineIAHcsr From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 3468 posts, RR: 42
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6466 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Last heard one IAHLHR, one IAHLGW. EWRLHR at some later point.


Working very hard to Fly Right....
User currently offlineCALMSP From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4047 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 6049 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

2 - IAH-LHR
2 - EWR-LHR

1 - IAH-LGW
2 - EWR-LGW
1 - CLE-LGW



okay, I'm waiting for the rich to spread the wealth around to me. Please mail your checks to my house.
User currently offlineVS11 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5964 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 3):
I believe LGW would still be a CO destination

Well, for the first year or so they do not have a choice but to keep LGW as the USA has to do their part of the Open Sky agreement. LHR was conditionally made open sooner but unless the USA delivers their promise LHR may go restricted again.


User currently offlineBAOPS777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5926 times:

I believe the terms of GB airways franchise finishing early is that BA has first refusal of all the LHR slots and I think they will want them as they are taking over some of the GB routes from March 08

User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5916 times:

Quoting CALMSP (Reply 6):
2 - IAH-LHR
2 - EWR-LHR

1 - IAH-LGW
2 - EWR-LGW
1 - CLE-LGW

I have heard exactly the same thing.......777s on the Heathrow flights, 752s on the Gatwick flights.


User currently offlineVS11 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5908 times:

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 9):
752s on the Gatwick flights

Can a 757 do IAH-LGW non-stop?


User currently offline777gk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1641 posts, RR: 18
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5900 times:

EWR-LHR would probably have at least 3-4 daily flights, and IAH-LHR 2-3, before CLE gets LHR service. Both cities have a larger, higher-yielding O/D market that would need to be addressed with greater priority than CLE. While there is no doubt CLE-LHR would be successful, odds are such a flight is likely a few more years down the road, once EWR/IAH frequencies are fully developed.

CO will maintain some degree of LGW service regardless of the situation at Heathrow. As the London market becomes increasingly fragmented, service to multiple airports will be critical. To that end, it is not out of the question to look for a return to STN or new service to LTN in the longer term.


User currently offlineCALMSP From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4047 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5879 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting VS11 (Reply 10):

No  Smile



okay, I'm waiting for the rich to spread the wealth around to me. Please mail your checks to my house.
User currently offlineRunway23 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Jan 2005, 2222 posts, RR: 35
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5782 times:

A little bird (or some intelligent looking at the GDS) tells me IAH-LGW will become a 764. But I may be wrong.

User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5771 times:

Quoting Runway23 (Reply 13):
A little bird (or some intelligent looking at the GDS) tells me IAH-LGW will become a 764. But I may be wrong.

Or a 762.....we could see some routes swapping equipment types.

Quoting VS11 (Reply 10):
Can a 757 do IAH-LGW non-stop?

Nope, sorry, I was unclear......I was talking about the EWR-LGW flights.


User currently offlineRunway23 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Jan 2005, 2222 posts, RR: 35
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5709 times:

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 14):
Or a 762.....we could see some routes swapping equipment types.

IAH-LGW has always performed extremely well in terms of freight and businessfirst. Obviously the key here is how much of the freight will be transferred to Heathrow and how many customers will decide to favour Heathrow instead of Gatwick. It's a given that IAH-LGW will still be able to maintain at least 35 paying customers in BF however whether that makes more sense than 25 at higher yields or placing that same aircraft on another route is something only CO knows for sure.


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5691 times:

Quoting Runway23 (Reply 15):
It's a given that IAH-LGW will still be able to maintain at least 35 paying customers in BF

Thats the key question: is it a ""given"" that the 35 pax BF cabin into Gatwick will remain fully booked if flights into LHR are also avaiable? The 2 772ER flights on the IAH-LHR route results in 100 Biz First seats......are their 35 more Biz First passengers interested in flying to Gatwick?


User currently offlineRunway23 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Jan 2005, 2222 posts, RR: 35
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5649 times:

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 16):
Thats the key question: is it a ""given"" that the 35 pax BF cabin into Gatwick will remain fully booked if flights into LHR are also avaiable? The 2 772ER flights on the IAH-LHR route results in 100 Biz First seats......are their 35 more Biz First passengers interested in flying to Gatwick?

Well the fact that IAH-LGW is continuing suggests that whatever the case there are at least 25 BF (extra) customers willing to fly to London. Can CO fill the extra 10 BF seats and 50ish Y seats on a 764 vs 762 without affecting their yield and losing potential revenue on other routes...


User currently offlineCALMSP From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4047 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5536 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

i'm concerned how much traffic we will lose to EK once they start the non-stop to DXB. The amount of traffic that we send on our IAH-LGW connecting to EK is astounding.


okay, I'm waiting for the rich to spread the wealth around to me. Please mail your checks to my house.
User currently offlineCOIAHLGW From United States of America, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5456 times:

It's amazing to see all of the bags at the carousel at IAH that have the EK DXB codeshare on them. I'll believe the 2x IAH-LHR and 1x IAH-LGW when I see it, especially as the EK flight starts soon.


Last aircraft flown, N78008, EI-CSR, EI-DHP, N77014, N78008, EI-CSH, N78002, N68155, N77012, N78017, N19117, N38403
User currently offlineBCALBOY From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 102 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5197 times:

Quoting VS11 (Reply 7):
Well, for the first year or so they do not have a choice but to keep LGW as the USA has to do their part of the Open Sky agreement. LHR was conditionally made open sooner but unless the USA delivers their promise LHR may go restricted again.

Sounds a very expensive way to keep the option of LGW open.
I really doubt if CO would maintain LGW for no other reason than in case the agreement gets torn up.
Its an unlikely scenario.

Quoting BAOPS777 (Reply 8):
I believe the terms of GB airways franchise finishing early is that BA has first refusal of all the LHR slots and I think they will want them as they are taking over some of the GB routes from March 08

Don-t think this is the case otherwise I-m sure BA would have snapped up the slots and this would have been
announced at the same time as the Easyjet take-over unless the price was so high that BA passed on the
option.
The original press release from GB stated that the 4 pairs of LHR slots were the subject of 3 separate deals.

Quoting Runway23 (Reply 15):
It's a given that IAH-LGW will still be able to maintain at least 35 paying customers in BF

How can you be so sure of such a figure.
There is significant connecting traffic to/from IAH over LON and LHR offers more of the key destinations and better frequencies.I can-t think of many significant points which are served only via LGW.
The majority of point to point traffic is also likely to favour LHR.
I would be surprised if CO continue to operate IAH/LGW if they can get twice daily at LHR.If they only get 1 daily
at LHR they will maintain 1 daily at LGW until they get more slots at LHR.


EWR is different .I am sure they will operate both LGW and LHR especially if they can us 752s on LGW.




Note that the GB slot times are far from ideal especially for IAH.

They have departure slots at 0650 days 2/5 , 0730 daily exc 2/5 , 0755 daily , 1540 daily , 1600 daily

These look fine for EWR but are very early, very late for the traditional IAH services.


The arrival slots are even more problematic....

1430 daily , 1435 daily...these both require a departure from IAH at 2325 ( very late ) , and 0230 from EWR !!

2215 , 2220 daily.....these would require a departure from EWR at around 1030 lcl , later than other carriers
daylight services and the arr in LON would offer no onward sameday cnnex and too late for tubes etc fm LHR.depart
On IAH/LHR these late slots would require a daylight departure at around 0700 , so would offer very few connections at either end of the route.

Unless CO has a swap lined up with another carrier , I think the GB slots will only serve EWR and they-ll have to find slots for IAH elsewhere .


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21580 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5162 times:

Quoting VS11 (Reply 7):
Well, for the first year or so they do not have a choice but to keep LGW as the USA has to do their part of the Open Sky agreement. LHR was conditionally made open sooner but unless the USA delivers their promise LHR may go restricted again.

Never gonna happen. The UK government can push for cabotage rights and mergers with USA carriers all it wants, but LHR is going to stay open, and as soon as VS and BA start mainland EU to USA flights, the support for the UK position within the EU is going to dwindle.

Just my opinion, but the whole conditional thing was done to save face, nothing more.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11969 posts, RR: 62
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5134 times:

Quoting VS11 (Reply 7):
Well, for the first year or so they do not have a choice but to keep LGW as the USA has to do their part of the Open Sky agreement.

Huh?

From March 2008, every single airport within the European Union (and yes, that includes the U.K., for those playing at home) will be open to any U.S. carrier to fly from anywhere in the U.S. at any price, with any schedule and aircraft, assuming they can get requisite slots. The agreement makes absolutely no distinction between the U.K. and the continent, or Gatwick and Heathrow. Everything is open ... everything.

Quoting VS11 (Reply 7):
LHR was conditionally made open sooner but unless the USA delivers their promise LHR may go restricted again.

As others said, dream on.

It's never going to happen, and I don't know why some in the U.K. still think there's a chance. Let me make it as clear as possible: there is absolutely 0 chance whatsoever of the U.S. ever allowing foreign airlines on domestic routes. It is just simply not going to happen, at least not in any of our lifetimes.

The agreement signed between the U.S. and U.K. liberalized the U.S.-E.U. aviation market (again, yes, that includes the U.K. and Heathrow) and the only "condition" placed on was that the U.S. start talking about further liberalization within the next year. Again, as I and others have said here on A.net repeatedly, that is basically meaningless, and was thrown in by the continent to shut the Brits up, but it has absolutely no teeth and means absolutely nothing. I'm sure the U.S. will be all to happy to "talk" about further liberalization until the end of time, but it's never going to happen. Th U.S. knows it, the E.U. knows it and, hard as it may be, the U.K. knows it, too.

Now, if the U.K. wants to get tough and basically stick by the position that if BA can't fly DFW-IAH, then CO can't fly IAH-LHR, that's fine. But now, they won't only have the E.U. to deal with - all of the rest of which is perfectly fine with the agreement as-is, but they'll also find that BA and Virgin will lose every single one of their landing rights at every airport in the United States overnight. I doubt that's a road they are prepared to go down since they know full-well what the ramifications would be.


User currently offlineBasrabob From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 54 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4806 times:

Well after reading Commavia's post , just about sums up the whole American position , I'm alright Jack ......They behave like spoilt brats! The EU should definitely pull the plug on the whole deal . The US is one of the most protectionist countries in the world , please can anyone explain to me why it is not ok for foreign airlines to be operating in the US , yet the US expects everybody else in the world to dance to their tune & to be able to do what they want . The phrase which comes to mind is Porkbarrel politics!

User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11969 posts, RR: 62
Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4792 times:

Quoting Basrabob (Reply 23):
They behave like spoilt brats!

I see, so not agreeing to give foreigners access to your market when you won't get access to their markets is considered "spoiled." That's interesting. Where I'm from, that's called unfair, and not agreeing to it is called being smart. But hey, maybe that's just where I'm from (you know, the land of "spoiled brats").

Quoting Basrabob (Reply 23):
The EU should definitely pull the plug on the whole deal

Have fun with that. Respectfully, the E.U. carriers need the U.S. market far more than the other way around.

Quoting Basrabob (Reply 23):
The US is one of the most protectionist countries in the world

Coming from a Briton, after the pathetic display that the U.K. government did to protect BA's sacred cow on Heathrow-U.S. flights, that is truly comical.

Quoting Basrabob (Reply 23):
please can anyone explain to me why it is not ok for foreign airlines to be operating in the US , yet the US expects everybody else in the world to dance to their tune & to be able to do what they want

Wow, that argument might actual have some rational bearing on reality, as soon as the U.S. actually asks another country to give U.S. carriers access to their domestic market. To my knowledge, that's never happened. But when it does, make sure to let me know, and then we can discuss the above quote.

Quoting Basrabob (Reply 23):
The phrase which comes to mind is Porkbarrel politics!

Actually, if that was your attempt at trying to use an American political term, it was used completely incorrectly. Porkbarrel politics has nothing to do with this: porkbarreling is when you hand out goodies to political constituencies to secure their political support in the next election. Outside the U.S., it might be called patronage or, if we're being honest, vote-buying. That is absolutely not what is happening here, where the U.S. is simply being prudent and not handing other countries access to a vital and strategic national industry without getting anything in return.


25 MAH4546 : I disagree. It's not going to happen soon, but I think that within 10-15 years, the U.S. will open the domestic market to foreign airlines, as they s
26 Avek00 : The EU Open Skies agreement specifically provides for a subsequent arrangement for EU carriers to operate US domestic flights --- if the two sides can
27 STT757 : With Silver Jet going twice daily EWR-Luton, EOS launching EWR-Stansted and AA launching JFK-Stansted, I can see CO launching EWR-LTN/STN to "keep th
28 Ikramerica : But it's lip service. When BA has set up their JFK operation flying to all different EU cities, and AF is flying LHR to LAX, SFO, etc., and LH opens
29 IADCA : I'm not sure about them not being willing to go back. The big obstacle would be BA at JFK, if it works. I'm not sure AF wouldn't give back successful
30 TOLtommy : Actually, we have one of the most open markets in the world. So much so that while our own citizens have a choice of the best products from around th
31 FlyOakland2IAH : Moving back more to the original topic... What will be the status of IAH-LGW after March? A lot of oil related businesses have offices near Gatwick, s
32 Drerx7 : They still are going to retain IAH-LGW.
33 Atmx2000 : Excuse me, the US was the one tolerating assymetrical competition from UK airlines. US airlines were shutout of the primary UK gateway while seeing U
34 DeltaL1011man : see it wont ever happen all it will do is kill the US airlines.......i would like it if i need to fly ATL-MCO and have to fly BA,AF or LH or fly to T
35 MAH4546 : No, it won't kill U.S. airlines because the last thing British Airways cares about is flying TPA-ATL. You won't suddenly see European airlines runnin
36 Commavia : ...yeah, a very small handfull of the most profitably and highest-yielding markets. They'll come in and cherry-pick the best markets in the U.S. to o
37 MAH4546 : Maybe I'm a little confused as to what European carriers want, but I was assuming that opening the U.S. domestic market to European airlines would de
38 Post contains links Analog : Well, it can do ABZ-IAH non-stop (4017nm), so LGW-IAH (4218nm) is possible, just not in CO's 752 config. http://www.citystarairlines.com/content/view
39 Ikramerica : NO THEY DON'T. This is the biggest lie on a.net. USA carriers do not have cabotage rights in any EU nation. You are a body of sovereign nations, not
40 MAH4546 : While I understand what I said was poorly worded, I never meant to imply that U.S. airlines currently have cabotage rights in Europe. They don't, and
41 EI564 : And the protectionist angle comes from the resistance in the US to allow increased control of US airlines by foreign concerns (at the moment they can
42 MasseyBrown : With the dollar and airline shares at their current levels, it's an ideal time to buy US assets. I believe if ownership were unrestricted, you would
43 HanginOut : I agree with EI564 and MasseyBrown. I think that the cabotage issue is simply a negotiating tactic for what the EU really wants. They want the (outda
44 MAH4546 : Agreed. Foreign airlines should be allowed to merge and/or purchase U.S. airlines. In the end, it will greatly benefit the traveling public. Look how
45 Commavia : Wrong. Because de facto goes absolutely nowhere when it comes time to actually start operating flights. Sort of like back in '97 when the Japanese we
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...
WOW-Continental And Southwest August Traffic posted Wed Sep 5 2007 18:34:51 by N471WN
Continental And Denver posted Thu May 3 2007 05:12:34 by 87Grounded
Continental And The 747-8? posted Sun Mar 4 2007 23:44:27 by CX747
Continental And The B777 posted Sat Aug 19 2006 06:17:03 by CB777
Jet Airways New Service Between ATQ And LHR posted Tue Jun 13 2006 00:20:56 by 9W77W
TAM JFK And LHR posted Sat May 6 2006 14:56:08 by Glennpower
TK A330 To Be In AMS And LHR Tomorrow 29/01 posted Sat Jan 28 2006 15:16:28 by Pilotaydin
Admirals Clubs At JFK And LHR posted Wed Nov 16 2005 00:30:11 by EALflyer
Continental And The A340 posted Sun May 8 2005 20:15:25 by Gg190
BA And LHR Terminal 5 posted Fri May 6 2005 19:00:22 by Scott0305