Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
LHR Summer '08 Slots By Airline  
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7531 posts, RR: 17
Posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4982 times:

The data below is extracted from reports issued by Airport Coordination Ltd (ACL), the company responsible for allocating and monitoring the use of slots at various UK airports including LHR.

First a definition:

A 'slot' is an Air Traffic Movement (that is an arrival or departure) at an allocated time in a period of 7 days. So if an airline has 2 slots at LHR this means that at a specified time on a specific day it is allowed one arrival and one departure in a seven day period - i.e. one arrival and one departure a week.

ACL provides detailed data for the 13 largest operators at LHR and summary data for the remaining 65. In this analysis I have chosen to look only at those airlines allocated 28 or more slots. That is to say the analysis is limited to those operators allocated the number of slots equivalent to a minimum of two or more daily arrivals and departures.

The biggest 13 operators with their slot allocation for Summer 2007, their percentage of all slots for Summer 2007, their slot allocation for Summer 2008, their percentage of all slots for Summer 2008, the absolute change in number of slots in Summer 2008 compared to Summer 2007 and the percentage change in their number of slots 2008 compared to 2007 are given below:

British Airways 3,930 41.4% 3,950 41.5% 20 0.5%

British Midland 1,076 11.3% 1,087 11.4% 11 1.0%

Lufthansa 406 4.3% 406 4.3% 0 0.0%

Virgin Atlantic 322 3.4% 326 3.4% 4 1.2%

Aer Lingus 302 3.2% 302 3.2% 0 0.0%

Scandinavian Airlines 276 2.9% 292 3.1% 16 5.8%

American Airlines 236 2.5% 250 2.6% 14 5.9%

Iberia 210 2.2% 196 2.1% -14 -6.7%

KLM/Northwest 190 2.0% 196 2.1% 6 3.2%

Air Canada 210 2.2% 168 1.8% -42 -20.0%

Air France/Delta 162 1.7% 154 1.6% -8 -4.9%

United Airlines 140 1.5% 154 1.6% 14 10.0%

Alitalia 178 1.9% 136 1.4% -42 -23.6%

The next 28 largest LHR operators with their number of slots for Summer 2008 are:

Air Portugal 88
Swiss International 84 (i.e. the equivalent of 6 arrivals and 6 departures 7 days a week)
Air India 74
Emirates 70 (i.e. the equivalent of 5 arrivals and 5 departures 7 days a week)
Austrian 68
Cathay Pacific 64
Jet 56 (i.e. the equivalent of 4 arrivals and 4 departures 7 days a week)
Finnair 56
Continental 56
Qantas 56
Qatar 56
Singapore 48
Olympic 42 (i.e. the equivalent of 3 arrivals and 3 departures 7 days a week)
South African 42
LOT 42
Gulf 42
Turkish 42
Aeroflot 40
CSA 40
Cyprus 36
Ethiad 34
Japan 34
Air Malta 30
Icelandair 28 (i.e. the equivalent of 2 arrivals and 2 departures 7 days a week)
Luxair 28
Thai 28
Air New Zealand 28
Malaysia 28

It is interesting to note that both KL/NW and AF/DL have combined to become a single entity at least in terms of LHR slot allocation and use. Perhaps logically one might have expected the combination to be AF/KL. But the actual combinations probably give these airlines future flexibility should their new services prove to be significantly more or less successful than they expected.

One of the surprising features is the AC's decline in slots. I am guessing that this is because they had slots on loan or short term lease, possibly from UA from when UA gave up their JFK-LHR service, but, with Open Skies, they have had to return those slots thus enabling UA to launch for example, their DEN-LHR service.

The decline in the number of AF/DL slots is somewhat surprising. But since the number operated by KL/NW is up perhaps there has been an effective transfer from AF to KL.

In terms of Open Skies it is clear that CO are the airline taking the changes really seriously. I believe that their 56 slots are primarily ot totally from AZ following their contraction in the LHR market. When you recognise that CO have achieved this purely on their own without help from a partner airline it is clear they are the airline taking their Open Skies opportunities really seriously.

When discussing Open Skies winners and losers it is normal to look at only the North Atlantic market and specifically flights to the USA from LHR. However what these figures show is the other side to the coin. With the reduction in AZ LHR-Italy flights, with the reduction of AC LHR-Canada flight and with the reduction in AF LHR-CDG flights (which these figures do not illustrate) it is clear that the other operators on these routes, primarily BA, are likely to see significant increases in load factors and possibly yields.

The observant amongst you will have noticed that BD have an uneven number of slots. No. The 1,087 figure for their weekly slots is not a typo. Has anyone got an explanation as to how you can have an uneven number of slots? The only answer I can think of is that BD have a bi-weekly flight that departs LHR on a Saturday night and returns on a Sunday morning.

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDiscoverCSG From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 832 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4894 times:

This is very interesting data.

Quoting VV701 (Thread starter):
In terms of Open Skies it is clear that CO are the airline taking the changes really seriously. I believe that their 56 slots are primarily ot totally from AZ following their contraction in the LHR market. When you recognise that CO have achieved this purely on their own without help from a partner airline it is clear they are the airline taking their Open Skies opportunities really seriously.

This is not surprising. CO is perhaps the USA-based carrier with the most to gain from LHR rights. CO has hubs serving two of the largest markets in the us (NYC and Houston), and large feeder operations at each. It is, even more than DL, an airline whose very image is designed to cater to the business travel market.

In the next few years, with 787's and more 777's coming, I can see CO building up the EWR-LHR route to near the levels of AA's JFK-LHR and BA's EWR/JFK-LHR. They need lots of slots for this type of operation. I don't see DL, and certainly not NW or US, having the same sort of LHR presence as CO in the next few years.

If (and it seems less and less likely as time goes on) we see a UA-CO merger, the LHR market is well served: We'd have service from DEN, EWR, IAD, IAH, LAX, ORD and SFO to LHR, most with multiple frequencies. That would leave SkyTeam (NW/DL/AF/KL) with service from ATL, DTW, JFK, LAX, MSP and SEA, and OneWorld (AA/BA) with all that service.

Quoting VV701 (Thread starter):
The observant amongst you will have noticed that BD have an uneven number of slots. No. The 1,087 figure for their weekly slots is not a typo. Has anyone got an explanation as to how you can have an uneven number of slots? The only answer I can think of is that BD have a bi-weekly flight that departs LHR on a Saturday night and returns on a Sunday morning.

This IS odd!


User currently offlineMisbeehavin From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 914 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4841 times:

What's also remarkable is the number of slots that Jet Airways has, for an airline that's only been flying to LHR for a couple of years.

User currently offlineThreepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2135 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4601 times:



Quoting VV701 (Thread starter):
One of the surprising features is the AC's decline in slots.

Yes, that is unexpected (to me anyway). I imagine they'llmake up for the overall capacity by assigning the 77W to as many of those slots as possible, combining multiple YYZ flights into fewer aircraft for example.



The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25300 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4578 times:



Quoting VV701 (Thread starter):
One of the surprising features is the AC's decline in slots. I am guessing that this is because they had slots on loan or short term lease, possibly from UA

AC dropped their LHR-YYT (St. John's, Newfoundland) service last September. That route, using A319s, operated daily during last summer's peak, so they won't be needing those slots this year.


User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7531 posts, RR: 17
Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4354 times:



Quoting Misbeehavin (Reply 2):
What's also remarkable is the number of slots that Jet Airways has, for an airline that's only been flying to LHR for a couple of years.

 checkmark 

It certainly shows that it is possible to build a presence at a slot-bound airport if you have the perserverence to do so.

I was also surprised at the growth in the SK presence of 16 slots. In absolute terms this seems to be about the third highest growth after CO and BA. I am wondering where these slots came from. I believe that SK did apply for 30 new slots but were only allocated 2. This must mean that they obtained 14 - effectively a daily slot pair - from somewhere else. If they came from another * Alliance airline the most likely donor appears to be AC.

Can anyone comment on the reasons for the small decline in AF/DL slots. As I understood it AF were giving up five of their 12 daily CDG-LHR-CDG rotations to create space for three daily DL rotations, one to ATL and two to JFK and the one daily AF LHR-LAX-LHR rotation. That does leave a few 'spare' slots (5 daily rotations replaced by 4) but where have the other slots gone? Have AF tranferred a daily slot pair to KL/NW?


User currently offlineA330323X From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 3039 posts, RR: 43
Reply 6, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4315 times:



Quoting VV701 (Thread starter):
In terms of Open Skies it is clear that CO are the airline taking the changes really seriously. I believe that their 56 slots are primarily ot totally from AZ following their contraction in the LHR market. When you recognise that CO have achieved this purely on their own without help from a partner airline it is clear they are the airline taking their Open Skies opportunities really seriously.

You could say the same thing about US buying their slots from AZ.



I'm the expert on here on two things, neither of which I care about much anymore.
User currently onlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5432 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4156 times:



Quoting VV701 (Reply 5):
It certainly shows that it is possible to build a presence at a slot-bound airport if you have the perserverence to do so.

Weren't some slots created and given to Jet at the time of the last UK-India aviation agreement? That is my recollection.



I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
User currently offlineETStar From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4133 times:

Quoting VV701 (Thread starter):
The data below is extracted from reports issued by Airport Coordination Ltd (ACL), the company responsible for allocating and monitoring the use of slots at various UK airports including LHR.

Can you please post the source of the report, if available? Thanks.

Edit: found it at http://www.acl-uk.org/reportsStatist...aspx?id=98&subjectId=33&childId=34

[Edited 2008-04-04 22:21:43]

User currently offlineAisak From Spain, joined Aug 2005, 763 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3855 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 5):
That does leave a few 'spare' slots (5 daily rotations replaced by 4) but where have the other slots gone? Have AF tranferred a daily slot pair to KL/NW?

The whole thing was a little tricky. Yes, AF had 12 pairs of slots being used by CDG services and being short haul services, the schedule time on the ground was under 1 hour. These slot pairs couldn't simply be transferred to Delta as they're not usable at all, there's no way a widebody can turn around as quickly as an AF short haul.

That's why they had to split the pairs and "re-match" an arrival slot with a departure slot. Also AF, seeing they will no longer have am hourly kind-of-shuttle service to CDG, they also swapped dep and arr slots and flights now spend around 2 hours in the ground at LHR, but the services are well timed (supposedly) to feed the CDG hub.

Also KLM slots using the F50 to EIN and RTM with a 50 min turn around weren't suitable for NW not only for the time but also because they weren't even daily.

So that's a good example about the advantages of the merged AF-KLM without the need of a full merger.. The parent company can decide from among 30 slots which ones are better suited for AF, for KLM and also for KLM's partner NW and AF's partner Delta.

If there is a pair of slots in the end which are impossible to match they can be always sold/lease to increase a big carrier's pool, such as BA, BMI or even AA.

[Edited 2008-04-05 05:59:03]

User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7531 posts, RR: 17
Reply 10, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3782 times:



Quoting ETStar (Reply 8):
Can you please post the source of the report, if available? Thanks.

Edit: found it at http://www.acl-uk.org/reportsStatist...Id=34

Many thanks. I tried to unsuccessfully create a link to the report itself in my opening thread. It did not work. Did not think about linking to the title page!


User currently onlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4511 posts, RR: 18
Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2314 times:

Despite thinking we should always serve both airports I think that, eventually Continental, if able to build LHR sufficiently will pull out of LGW altogether.


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7531 posts, RR: 17
Reply 12, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2144 times:



Quoting A330323X (Reply 6):
Quoting VV701 (Thread starter):
In terms of Open Skies it is clear that CO are the airline taking the changes really seriously. I believe that their 56 slots are primarily ot totally from AZ following their contraction in the LHR market. When you recognise that CO have achieved this purely on their own without help from a partner airline it is clear they are the airline taking their Open Skies opportunities really seriously.

You could say the same thing about US buying their slots from AZ.

I see where you are coming. But while US have obtained just 14 slots - enough for just one return flight a day - CO have obtained 56.

Of course it could be said that it was fortuitous for CO that AZ were contracting to a single hub so had spare LHR slots. But nevertheless they saw an opportunity and took it. As a result they already have a significant presence at the airport.

CO are already ranked 20 out of the 78 airlines that serve LHR measured by their number of their arrivals and departures. They are probably ranked still higher in terms of passenger carrying capability.


User currently onlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5432 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1982 times:



Quoting VV701 (Reply 12):
Of course it could be said that it was fortuitous for CO that AZ were contracting to a single hub so had spare LHR slots.

Industry press rumors said CO got only one pair of slots from AZ, with two pairs coming from GB Airways and one pair from Aer Lingus; but I wouldn't be surprised if CO is looking for more of AZ's in days to come. Their COO said they are in the market for more and AZ is probably under pressure to sell.



I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
User currently offlineDeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9392 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1980 times:



Quoting VV701 (Thread starter):
It is interesting to note that both KL/NW and AF/DL have combined to become a single entity at least in terms of LHR slot allocation and use. Perhaps logically one might have expected the combination to be AF/KL. But the actual combinations probably give these airlines future flexibility should their new services prove to be significantly more or less successful than they expected.

i would guess it is due to DL only leasing LHR slots from AF. Same for KL/NW



yep.
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...
LHR To Increase Fees By 23.5% posted Tue Mar 11 2008 04:14:31 by UAL777UK
2nd MCI-YYZ, Summer '08 On AC posted Thu Mar 6 2008 06:14:53 by Rjnut
Rome/FCO To USA & Canada Summer 08 Summary posted Sun Feb 10 2008 08:05:21 by Nycfly75
Delta JFK Summer 08 Expansion! posted Wed Feb 6 2008 17:11:10 by Boeing777228
G4 To Temporarily Cut 5 IWA Routes For Summer '08 posted Fri Feb 1 2008 07:40:14 by FWAERJ
Omni From SFO Summer '08 posted Tue Jan 8 2008 08:57:56 by AS739X
BD Summer 08 - INV, ALC & NCE Axed posted Thu Jan 3 2008 04:33:33 by Sam1987
Delta's Summer '08 South America Schedule posted Fri Dec 21 2007 09:13:01 by Flavio340
LTN/MAN-Tel Aviv Flights To Continue For Summer 08 posted Thu Dec 20 2007 05:13:27 by Gilesdavies
No More DL 764s On ATL-FL Routes Eff. Summer 08 posted Wed Dec 19 2007 15:23:13 by 1337Delta764