Gilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2884 posts, RR: 1 Posted (5 years 6 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 7010 times:
This news is now over a day old and I can assure everyone I have done a thorough search but cannot see any thread relating to this which I was surprised at that... As this is big news thought is deserved its own thread!
(If there is already a dedicated thread, please feel free to delete this thread.)
According to the US Airways website, from the 29th March 2008 US Airways will operate a daily service between LHR-PHL, it's unclear if this will replace the service they operate from LGW or if both routes will operate alongside each other.
The route will be operated by an A330 and will operate the following scheduled:
Philadelphia - London Heathrow
Flight Departure Arrival
720 10:45 PM 11:05 AM
London Heathrow - Philadelphia
Flight Departure Arrival
721 12:50 PM 4:00 PM
As you can see the timings are not the greatest, but I suppose beggars cannot be choosers when it comes to slots at LHR! Also 1hr 45mins, on the ground in London does not seem long to be on the ground. - When you consider how congested LHR can be, and sometimes you end taxing for over 30 mins when you land and leaves little catch up time if the incoming flight is delayed...
If the LGW service does remain, I would expect to see this remain permanently with a 757-200 flying the route...
I bet Charlotte will be pushing US Airways really hard now, to secure them an LHR slot as opposed to LGW - as this has been on their wish list for a long time. Unlike PHL, which already has an LHR route with BA!
It would be interesting to see who US Airways have obtained the slots from.
Unlike other US carriers that have annouced routes from LHR, they have been closely tied with other European carriers, but US Airways seems to be making this move on their own. I would have thought they would have annouced the route as a joint partnership/codeshre with maybe BMI, Lufthansa or United.
Its just my view, but for some reason I am really surprised at their move and was expecting US Airways to be the last of the carriers to move and be willing to pay LHR's price for the valuable slots.
HPRamper From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3665 posts, RR: 8 Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6895 times:
While this is great news that US passengers don't have to fly into Crapwick every time, I'm not sure how likely future CLT-LHR service is. CLT is being groomed as the gateway to Latin America and sure, it would be nice, but with current LGW service already it's not going to be high on the list of priorities.
Even though LHR may be best for airlines, in terms of revenue and provide better connection for the passengers. The airport is worst than LGW by a mile in every sense.
Vega From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (5 years 6 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 6771 times:
This would be the perfect time (route) for US to upgrade their Envoy product, now that they are directly competing with BA. Until recently the Envoy Lounge was the top PHL club facility and US could flaunt it as a unique Envoy benefit. However BAs new recently opened Lounges have since (IMO) taken that honor and who knows what the new Delta/AF Crown Room will look like. Hear me Tempe? It will be interesting to see how this new flight affects the expected continuing 757 LGW passenger loads next year.
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25852 posts, RR: 79 Reply 7, posted (5 years 6 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 6616 times:
Quoting HPRamper (Reply 2): I'm not sure how likely future CLT-LHR service is. CLT is being groomed as the gateway to Latin America and sure, it would be nice, but with current LGW service already it's not going to be high on the list of priorities.
I doubt CLT would be high on the list given the cost of slots at LHR. The vast majority of the people who are either O&D or connecting on the CLT-LGW flight are likely terminating in London, which negates Heathrow's connection advantage, making any other difference negligible.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21245 posts, RR: 19 Reply 11, posted (5 years 6 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6388 times:
Quoting N1120A (Reply 7): The vast majority of the people who are either O&D or connecting on the CLT-LGW flight are likely terminating in London, which negates Heathrow's connection advantage, making any other difference negligible.
CLT-LGW is not a stellar performer pax-wise. Loads are all right, but that comes at the expense of yields, particularly in the winter. Cargo keeps that flight going (kind of like AA's DFW-SCL service)... cargo doesn't especially care what airport it uses.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
PHLwok From United States of America, joined May 2007, 376 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (5 years 6 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6324 times:
Quoting Mariner (Reply 6): I'll choose to fly into LGW before LHR any time.
Thankfully, they appear to be keeping the PHL-LGW flight as well. I've flown to LGW and dealt with M25 traffic even when going to Windsor (near LHR) just to avoid Heathrow, and been glad that I did.
Most likely - I'd be very surprised if they didn't. What every happened to BMI's transatlantic plans out of LHR?
Quoting Gilesdavies (Thread starter): If the LGW service does remain, I would expect to see this remain permanently with a 757-200 flying the route...
Not to start another "757 transatlantic" thread, but that alone would convince me to fly into the joke of an airport that is known as London Heathrow, the UK's and London's embarassing primary gateway. But of course, it would be hard to convince me to fly on US anyways...
Quoting HPRamper (Reply 2): While this is great news that US passengers don't have to fly into Crapwick every time
Ummm...
Even though the oldish South Terminal isn't exactly what I'd call nice, its much better than LHR T3. And the North Terminal is quite nice and new.
Personally, I'd rather fly into Gatwick than Hellrow! Sorry for not coming up with a decent nickname (or at least one that can be repeated on this forum, unlike S***row), I know that's horrible name.
Quoting Gilesdavies (Reply 4): All of London's airports a total embarressment!
While none of them are exactly world-class, STN, LTN, and even Gatwick are fine, even if they're a bit too far from central London. I'd take them anyday over PHL.
Alangirvan From New Zealand, joined Nov 2000, 2091 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (5 years 6 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6149 times:
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 11): cargo doesn't especially care what airport it uses.
But Freight Forwarders do care which airport they use, and some airlines that only fly into LGW have to accept freight at LHR and drive it to LGW. ( I might be a bit out of date - that used to be true.) Freight will be one of the big advantages of operating to LHR. If an airline uses 757s over the Atlantic, that suggests that they do not expect a lot of cargo revenue on a route.
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 11): CLT-LGW is not a stellar performer pax-wise. Loads are all right, but that comes at the expense of yields, particularly in the winter. Cargo keeps that flight going (kind of like AA's DFW-SCL service)... cargo doesn't especially care what airport it uses.
I don't know much about the yields, no one here does, but it's not quite the dog you seem to think it is (judging by this and other recent posts). CLT-LGW carries more passengers than PHL-LGW, not to mention CVG-LGW, MSP-LGW, RDU-LGW, TPA-LGW, BWI-LHR, and DTW-LHR; and it's not too far behind DEN-LHR. Source: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airport...tl_Air_Pax_Route_Analysis_2006.pdf
LHR777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (5 years 6 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5875 times:
Quoting Gilesdavies (Reply 4): Obviously you ain't flown through LHR recently!
Even though LHR may be best for airlines, in terms of revenue and provide better connection for the passengers. The airport is worst than LGW by a mile in every sense.
All of London's airports a total embarressment!
Quoting Mariner (Reply 6): I'll choose to fly into LGW before LHR any time.
Quoting Abrelosojos (Reply 12): How is US marketing this service .... "COME FLY US: WE WILL SEEM LIKE PARADISE CONNECTING 2 HELLISH AIRPORTS"?
Quoting PHLwok (Reply 13): I've flown to LGW and dealt with M25 traffic even when going to Windsor (near LHR) just to avoid Heathrow, and been glad that I did.
Quoting Threepoint (Reply 14): I think many repeat flyers prefer um, Crapwick to Heathblow. I do.
Quoting 747fan (Reply 16): Not to start another "757 transatlantic" thread, but that alone would convince me to fly into the joke of an airport that is known as London Heathrow, the UK's and London's embarassing primary gateway
...all this Heathrow-bashing on a.net is SO tedious. There are plenty of folk who work at LHR and frequent a.net and get tired of all the anti-LHR threads. There are plenty of airports in the world that are worse than Heathrow from a passenger-perspective, but I suppose it's an 'easy target' for everyone on here. Let's just all jump on the bash-LHR band wagon...
FWIW, those of us that work at LHR every day DO see the improvements going on in the terminals, and look forward to the day that T5 opens, Heathrow East opens, T3 improvements are complete, runway 3 is built and so on. We ARE working hard to restore LHR as the premier European gateway, but it takes time and investment, beyond the BAA shopping malls.
BlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1710 posts, RR: 4 Reply 23, posted (5 years 6 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5837 times:
Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 22): Quoting LHR777 (Reply 21):
There are plenty of airports in the world that are worse than Heathrow from a passenger-perspective,
True, but they are all in the 3rd world!
Try Warsaw. Possibly the worst in Europe amont the major airports.
Gilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2884 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (5 years 6 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5786 times:
Quoting LHR777 (Reply 21): There are plenty of folk who work at LHR and frequent a.net and get tired of all the anti-LHR threads. There are plenty of airports in the world that are worse than Heathrow from a passenger-perspective, but I suppose it's an 'easy target' for everyone on here. Let's just all jump on the bash-LHR band wagon...
Well maybe the people who work at Heathrow and find the LHR bashing tedious, should put themsleves in the shoes of the passengers that use the airport and find it such a nightmare to use! Many of the people on here are making a fair comment, I use LTN, STN, EMA, BHX and LGW regularly and none of them are perfect, but the whole passenger experience is so much better than LHR!
Also the staff at other UK airports, seem so much friendlier. I was shocked at how rude some of ground handling agents were when I flew with Air Canada.
25 Arsenal@LHR: Nice to see US Airways joining the LHR club, can't wait to see jet black A333's at the airport, though PHL is one of the more 'thin' North American ro
26 LHR777: Guess what? We often ARE in passengers shoes, as we get flight benefits which involve us also using LHR, along with a myriad of other airports. Often
27 LHRBlueSkies: Hmm, MAD, IAD - not exactly pinacles of airport design or passenger satisfaction! But they are AC's own staff, and AC are not renowned for giving gre
28 BY188B: In the first quarter of 2007 LHR was ranked 80th out of 93 european airports for overall quality. LGW was ranked 68th. the report states that in the s
29 B747forever: Wow, that is really bad. Thought that LHR would have been little higher.
30 747fan: They're no longer jet black (well the bottom of them is navy). I'm pretty sure most, if not all of USAirways' A330's are in their new livery. Persona
31 Rbgso: Well done. Or how about "If you thought our LGW service was bad, wait till you fly us to LHR" No reason all those who prefer LHR should be spared fro
32 Gigneil: Heh, it was never black. It was always navy blue. NS
33 IliriBDL: They'll be using Terminal 1 as far as I know.
34 Abrelosojos: = LMAO! Hahahaha. That is just funny. But wait, I do consider CDG at part with LHR . Does that count? = LMAO! = The irony of the word "sterling" make
35 Rockinflyer: I wonder if PHX will get service to LHR out of PHX in the somewhat near future on US. I would imagine CLT would be next on the list. I just hope they
36 Airbus3801: Seems doubtful as we already have the field dominated by BA's flight to LHR. I wish though that US would spend more time expanding their HQ hub city
37 Rockinflyer: I can see many opportunities for expansion at PHX by US. I think we're a bit overloaded with flights to Mexico here in the west. If not LHR, maybe som
38 Rockinflyer: P.S. I finally joined A.NET today! These are my first posts on the site. I've be procrastinating for a few years now. I'm glad I joined! I was a corpo
39 IliriBDL: Welcome to airliners.net Rockinflyer.
40 ElmoTheHobo: You aren't serious about Dulles are you? It makes more sense to use the slot at Philadelphia, as it keeps US competitive with BA on the PHL-LHR route
41 747fan: Rockingflyer, it is my pleasure to lend you a warm welcome to a.net, THE aviation website and forum. Happy a.netting, 747fan Whoops! My bad. My guess
42 747fan: I just realized that my previous post was incorrect. It looks like Terminal 4 will actually be SkyTeam, as that is where NW, CO, and DL are tentative
43 B742: KLM are already at T4. SkyTeam associate member Kenya Airways will also stay at T4. Rob!
44 LHR777: CDG in the third world? LMAO.... Seriously, plenty of US airports are pretty dire to begin with. No international-to-international connections, surly
45 IliriBDL: The move to T1 is expected in 2008 right? Also TK should be included when they join Star Alliance.
46 ElmoTheHobo: Yes, their A330 is light years ahead of the their 767. Sure it doesn't have the new CW, WTP or First, but it it'll do. US' A330s, IMO, are some of th
47 Philly65: You got to be kidding, right? DLH pulled PHX for a reason....it didn't make any $$$$. I remember pre 9/11 I believe KL/NW added PHX-AMS briefly or me
48 Viscount724: No, MIA will apparently use T5. BA website shows the following routes at T3. The only longhaul routes at T3 are BKK/SIN/SYD, due to the BA/QF codesha
49 Vega: That may work for high volume "tourist" destinations, but the premium business routes (which are the money makers) need to have arrivals at their des
50 Abrelosojos: = LMAO ... haha ... now that you say it, perhaps it feels "third world" ... no I am sort of kidding. I meant, CDG is an airport that gives LHR compet
51 PHLwok: LH now has connecting options for pax into PHX on US/HP, but I think your second statement is correct, though I'd like to be proven wrong. There are
52 PHLwok: I'm very willing to give LHR another chance once the improvements are in place. An improved Heathrow will make my life far easier, especially since I
53 747fan: Yes, sir! I believe the move should happen around March or April of 2008 when Terminal 5 opens (T5 is currently scheduled to open on March 27, 2008).
54 Cubsrule: Again, the loads are high because US chooses to fill a lot of the empty seats with sale fares (6 cents/mile, which is about what US regularly sells Y
55 StarGoldLHR: >> er.. after 700 flights in 5 years and 6 continentns... I am struggling to think which airport it is you are referring to ? nope.. No idea. .. I gi
56 Bobnwa: I know KL/NW never flew PHX-AMS and I do not think it was ever under consideration.
57 ProPHX: Apparently it's not as funny as you think it is.... http://www.azcentral.com/business/ar...les/1121biz-europeflights1123.html There was never KL serv
58 Philly65: So the route never did launch but it was close prior to 09/11...you can bank on it. It was also a "potential" 787 route under consideration for NWA b
59 ProPHX: I'd be interested in seeing proof of the now two alleged flights by NW to AMS. PHX may never be a major international hub, but there's room for more
60 LHR777: You're obviously doing something wrong mate...I've never taken more than 45 mins through any LHR terminal. Ever.
61 Thegooddoctor: I think some people have confused AMS service from phoenix on KL vs NW. KL never offered this route, but NW DID - as a one-stop. Usually there was a c
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2884 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 604 posts, 
From Puerto Rico, joined Nov 2005, 844 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22724 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2007, 1205 posts, 
From Venezuela, joined May 2005, 4918 posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2091 posts, 
Not to start another "757 transatlantic" thread, but that alone would convince me to fly into the joke of an airport that is known as London Heathrow, the UK's and London's embarassing primary gateway. But of course, it would be hard to convince me to fly on US anyways... 
From Philippines, joined Mar 2004, 1181 posts, 
From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1710 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
