Knightsofmalta From Malta, joined Nov 2005, 1415 posts, RR: 17 Posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2275 times:
I was just thinking, what with Heathrow being such a constant mess, and a mess about to get worse once work on the central terminal area begins, why doesn´t the entire STAR Alliance simply move to Gatwick. They already have dedicated STAR Alliance terminals in some airports, so why not have an entire airport?
The whole airport is not available! There is a massive charter presence at LGW, aswell as extensive low cost operations by U2 and BE, for example, and domestic/European routes flown by BA and their numerous 737's.
Knightsofmalta From Malta, joined Nov 2005, 1415 posts, RR: 17 Reply 2, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2211 times:
Sure, but they could swap. For the charter and low cost airlines it makes no difference if they use LHR or LGW because they´re not operating a hub in the traditional sense. And with the space becoming available back at LHR, BA could centralize its London operations there.
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10192 posts, RR: 62 Reply 4, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2191 times:
Well, first of all, as Tupolev said, they couldn't have the "entire" airport by any stretch. Anyone who flies out of LGW regularly will tell you that BA still maintains quite a sizable presence there and has a lock on a good deal of the infrastructure - including much of the far-superior North Terminal facilities. Beyond BA, of course, the other heavy-hitter at LGW is EasyJet, and they also have an extremely dominate market position and fly to many of the same markets that Star carriers would serve.
Beyond all of this, though, it's also worth noting that Star would have absolutely no reason to leave Heathrow. Led by bmi, Lufthansa and United, they already have the solid #2 position there behind [b]one[b]world (led by BA and AA). Heathrow is the more in-demand airport for high-yielding business travelers, and Star has a strong position there. Why would they want to leave?
Hotelmode From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 459 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2191 times:
Why would Star want to move from the most valuable hub in the world, and conversely why would Gatwicks charter companies want to move to an expensive slot constrained airport with a night movement ban?
AirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1929 times:
Quoting Knightsofmalta (Reply 2): For the charter and low cost airlines it makes no difference if they use LHR or LGW because they´re not operating a hub in the traditional sense
Eh...are you serious? It would make a MASSIVE difference to their costs. But, on a lighter note, if the constant myths were to be believed it would probably be abhorent to 'business' passengers finding themselves having to mingle with mere tourists!
PWM2TXLHopper From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1217 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1830 times:
Quoting Knightsofmalta (Thread starter): I was just thinking, what with Heathrow being such a constant mess, and a mess about to get worse once work on the central terminal area begins, why doesn´t the entire STAR Alliance simply move to Gatwick. They already have dedicated STAR Alliance terminals in some airports, so why not have an entire airport?
Because high fare paying business travelers make up a large portion of commercial passenger traffic, particularly when it comes to flight revenue, and they prefer to use LHR because of it's close proximity and convenience to the city of London, as well as the vast array of choices they have for possible connecting flights from LHR to International and Domestic destinations. Gatwick offers neither of these, and that's a killer for attracting the high fare paying business passenger.
London is the number one trans-Atlantic market from the U.S., and a lot of people don't want to fly way out to Gatwick. The U.S legacy carriers have only dreamed of getting LHR slots until the recent open sky's agreement, and coincidental I believe those flights start today? Finally getting to tap into a market they've always desired, but diplomatically were never able to start.. With the exception of AA, and UA of course and Pan Am before that!
Sponsor Message: 
From Malta, joined Nov 2005, 1415 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Aug 2004, 2119 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 793 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10192 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
