Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Doesn´t The Star Alliance Move To Gatwick  
User currently offlineKnightsofmalta From Malta, joined Nov 2005, 1843 posts, RR: 19
Posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3516 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?

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTupolevTu154 From Germany, joined Aug 2004, 2186 posts, RR: 28
Reply 1, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3468 times:



Quoting Knightsofmalta (Thread starter):
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.

Tom Big grin



Atheists - Winning since 33 A.D.
User currently offlineKnightsofmalta From Malta, joined Nov 2005, 1843 posts, RR: 19
Reply 2, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3452 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.

User currently offlineSbworcs From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 852 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3441 times:



Quoting Knightsofmalta (Reply 2):
Sure, but they could swap

I think the costs of LHR would be too excessive for the LCC's.



The best way forwards is upwards!
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11974 posts, RR: 62
Reply 4, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3432 times:



Quoting Knightsofmalta (Thread starter):
so why not have an entire airport?

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?


User currently offlineHotelmode From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 460 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3432 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?

User currently offlineTupolevTu154 From Germany, joined Aug 2004, 2186 posts, RR: 28
Reply 6, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3410 times:



Quoting Sbworcs (Reply 3):

I think the costs of LHR would be too excessive for the LCC's.

As well as finding slots. 200+ BA 737 flights, U2 319's and BE aircraft wouldn't fit in too brilliantly. Not to mention endless charters!

Quoting Commavia (Reply 4):
Anyone who flies out of LGW regularly will tell you that BA still maintains quite a sizable presence there

Tell me about it! covereyes 

Tom Big grin



Atheists - Winning since 33 A.D.
User currently offlineEXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3412 times:

If they moved they would lose a good chunk on the business traffic they are carrying today

User currently offlineEXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3398 times:

To make LGW attractive, what would have to happen would be this.


Profit Loss From High Cost LHR > Profit Loss From Lower Yield LGW


User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3170 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!


User currently offlinePWM2TXLHopper From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1360 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3071 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!


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2933 times:



Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 10):
and Pan Am before that!

...and TW and NA  Wink


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...
US Airways And The Star Alliance At Gatwick posted Fri Jun 25 2004 21:57:28 by Gilesdavies
Aviacsa To The Star Alliance? posted Wed Apr 14 2004 17:30:53 by AM772
What Benefit Is The Star Alliance To AC? posted Tue May 13 2003 18:06:21 by JU101
Thai Welcomes SIA To The Star Alliance posted Fri Feb 11 2000 14:22:51 by GE90
Star Alliance - Not To Panama? posted Thu Nov 29 2007 06:10:53 by ZRH
A380 And The Star Alliance posted Tue May 15 2007 22:17:23 by Stylo777
Air China And The Star Alliance posted Wed Feb 7 2007 22:48:15 by LAXdude1023
Why All The Demand On DL To PTY? posted Sun Dec 17 2006 00:28:27 by OttoPylit
Turkish Airlines Will Join The Star Alliance...... posted Sun Oct 22 2006 12:10:40 by AirCanada014
Why No Combined Star Alliance Internet-Tickets posted Thu Jul 6 2006 15:19:04 by Dj1986