Oly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6225 posts, RR: 11 Reply 1, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 18340 times:
Quoting Max Q (Thread starter): I think it is a big mistake and will cause us to lose a lot of business.
I presume they wouldn't be doing it if there wasn't any justification. Maybe there's more money to be made using the planes elsewhere. Any relocation of services to LHR?
Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
I think it is a big mistake and will cause us to lose a lot of business.
I presume they wouldn't be doing it if there wasn't any justification. Maybe there's more money to be made using the planes elsewhere. Any relocation of services to LHR?
I hope this is just a rumour. CO have a long and very happy history at LGW and combined with a very strong base of passengers and Cargo using their services should be enough for the bean counters to keep their identity at LGW.
As for relocation of services to LHR there are at least 2 flights to EWR and 2 flights to IAH daily from LHR along with their regular services from LGW.
I have spoken to CO (Cargo operations) and they have not heard anything about this. I directed my contact to this site so hopefully he will be able to keep an eye on this.
LHR777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 18187 times:
Quoting DC10BHX (Reply 4): As for relocation of services to LHR there are at least 2 flights to EWR and 2 flights to IAH daily from LHR along with their regular services from LGW.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5918 posts, RR: 8 Reply 5, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 18074 times:
Another side of the story is LHR and how much money CO paid to get additional slots. When you spend that much money to get something cost have to be re-couped somewhere else, and since both airports are in the same country in close proximity to each other, I would say that Gatwick is going to go in short order.
CO cost in getting more access to LHR is going to drive its service into Gatwick, not how well the service perfoms or how many pax love it, those things did not prevent or even give CO pause when the option of getting LHR slots arrived, they simple jumped on them, so now for good or bad they have to make them work.
CALMSP From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3662 posts, RR: 8 Reply 6, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 17745 times:
currently we need our LGW operation, unles we negotiate a codeshae with EK on all LHR flights. Currently we only codeshare with EK on one LHR flight. Also, I dont see where we could put the 757 elsewhere that would make more money than flying it into LGW.
okay, I'm waiting for the rich to spread the wealth around to me. Please mail your checks to my house.
Ncflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 447 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 17703 times:
The CLE flight to London sure seems tenuous to me as it is. From what I could tell there was a big drop off in traffic to LGW, probably due to cannibalization of the CDG flight. With shrinkage of domestic routes, CLE has lost so much of the feed that CO has deemed necessary to support service to Europe.
Continental Airlines to Launch Third Daily New York-Heathrow Flight
Flights to Gatwick Ending from Both New York and Houston
HOUSTON, Sept. 9 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Continental Airlines (NYSE: CAL) today announced that it will launch a third daily non-stop flight between its New York hub, Newark Liberty International Airport, and London's Heathrow Airport, effective Oct. 25, 2008 (eastbound), subject to government approval and slot approval. On the same date, it will discontinue flights to London/Gatwick Airport from both New York and Houston.
Continental will continue to operate two daily flights from Houston to Heathrow in addition to the three daily flights from Liberty to Heathrow.
"Our focus on Heathrow is a response to the changing realities of the marketplace," said Jim Compton, Continental's executive vice president marketing. "Our customers have shown a clear preference for Heathrow, and our main competitors have focused their operations there. We regret the need to end year-round operations at Gatwick, but it is imperative that we remain competitive and continue to meet the needs of our customers."
Continental operates a variety of Boeing jets (777, 767 and 757) on its routes from the U.S. to London, with ground operations at Heathrow Terminal 4. Continental also operates non-stop services from Liberty to Belfast, Birmingham, Bristol, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Manchester, as well as Dublin and Shannon -- more cities in the U.K. and Ireland than any other trans-Atlantic airline.
In addition, Continental and Virgin Atlantic Airways codeshare on several Virgin Atlantic-operated flights to London/Heathrow and London/Gatwick.
Continental Airlines is the world's fifth largest airline. Continental, together with Continental Express and Continental Connection, has more than 2,500 daily departures throughout the Americas, Europe and Asia, serving 131 domestic and 131 international destinations. More than 550 additional points are served via SkyTeam alliance airlines. With more than 44,000 employees, Continental has hubs serving New York, Houston, Cleveland and Guam, and together with Continental Express, carries approximately 69 million passengers per year.
Continental consistently earns awards and critical acclaim for both its operation and its corporate culture. For the fifth consecutive year, FORTUNE magazine named Continental the No. 1 World's Most Admired Airline on its 2008 list of World's Most Admired Companies. For more company information, go to continental.com.
CALMSP From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3662 posts, RR: 8 Reply 9, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 17573 times:
very surprising...........as our loads on our LGW remained to be strong since the LHR inaugural. Guess its safe to say no CLE-LGW service next year!!! Wish we had a dep/arr time for the proposed 3rd flight. Guessing the 767-400 on the IAH-LGW flight would probably be the a/c of preference.
okay, I'm waiting for the rich to spread the wealth around to me. Please mail your checks to my house.
AirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 17497 times:
A shame, many people in the south of England much prefer using LGW.
It will be ironic, if the net effect of open skies is US carriers spending a fortune on LHR slots to chase the pot of gold there, while the likes of BA expand in their place at LGW...
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
WorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 17504 times:
if AA, the largest US operator to London decided it was not worth sustaining a LGW operation, it's hard to believe that CO could do so.
LGW will become a niche market for US carriers. DL/NW have large enough LGW operations to justify keeping them alongside LHR, esp. since DL/NW ATL and DTW hubs are closer to the key Europe-east coast traffic flows while being outside of the highly competitve and saturated NYC-LHR routes.
CALMSP From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3662 posts, RR: 8 Reply 12, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 17428 times:
Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 13): DL/NW have large enough LGW operations to justify keeping them alongside LHR
i wouldn't call 3-4 flights a large LGW operation.
we had 5 flights a day at LGW not to long ago.........does that mean we had an enormous operation??
okay, I'm waiting for the rich to spread the wealth around to me. Please mail your checks to my house.
Thomasphoto60 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3727 posts, RR: 25 Reply 13, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 17260 times:
Sad to see the 31 year history that IAH and LGW have shared come to a close. Perhaps BA might consider picking up that route in addition to their twice dailies from IAH-LHR.
CODC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2175 posts, RR: 7 Reply 14, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 17025 times:
Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 13): DL/NW have large enough LGW operations to justify keeping them alongside LHR
DL's slot timing, in particular, at LHR really isn't competitive for business travelers. I'm sure that, given the choice, at least some premium pax would prefer their prime LGW US departures/arrivals to the off-hour choices currently offered from Heathrow.
CO paid through the nose for their slots, got the best portfolio out of the new entrants, and by all accounts, the service has been successful, but clearly at the expense of LGW. It's a shame... I certainly felt Gatwick was more user-friendly.
With that said, I don't think this is a great decision for CO. Compton hints at seasonal service with this remark, "We regret the need to end year-round operations at Gatwick," but I doubt it will return. This is unfortunate for CLE, as there is a very real possibility neither CDG nor LGW will be back on the schedules for '09.
I have to believe this slot will be a later evening departure, somewhere between 8-10pm to fit in with CO's second evening bank of transatlantic flights, and my money says the airplane that's going to operate the flight will be the 767-400ER that is currently doing IAH-LGW.
Jetskipper From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 352 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 16983 times:
Does CO have an additional LHR landing slot for a seasonal CLE flight? If so, would they use it for a CLE flight or just use it for a more profitable seasonal EWR or IAH flight?
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 6679 posts, RR: 17 Reply 16, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 16951 times:
Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 12): A shame, many people in the south of England much prefer using LGW.
It will be ironic, if the net effect of open skies is US carriers spending a fortune on LHR slots to chase the pot of gold there, while the likes of BA expand in their place at LGW...
Yes. Passengers from the Gatwick catchment area will be able to travel on the new BA flights.
Starting Sunday 26 October BA2173, a 772 flight, departs LGW at 1120 hrs and arrives JFK at 1515hrs. The return flight, BA2172, departs at 1900hrs and is scheduled at LGW at 0605hrs the following morning. With the change from a 757 to a 777 there will be significantly more capacity. As JFK is the more popular point of entry of the two NYC airports I assume that this additional capaciy will not be too difficult to fill.
UAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3355 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 16900 times:
Quoting CALMSP (Reply 8): currently we need our LGW operation, unles we negotiate a codeshae with EK on all LHR flights. Currently we only codeshare with EK on one LHR flight
Dont forget that CO will join Star and have applied to the DOT for a JV with UA/AC and LH across the pond so there will be codeshares there and some!.
CO pulling out of LGW was inevitable IMHO. I look forward to seeing them in terminal one at LHR in the not too distant future.
Incitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3789 posts, RR: 14 Reply 18, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 16742 times:
Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 13): LGW will become a niche market for US carriers. DL/NW have large enough LGW operations to justify keeping them alongside LHR, esp. since DL/NW ATL and DTW hubs are closer to the key Europe-east coast traffic flows while being outside of the highly competitve and saturated NYC-LHR routes.
The reality might be that Delta cannot afford the number of slots it takes to move to Heathrow entirely.
If one says "saturated NYC-LHR", does it mean Delta is losing money on the route? With two daily flights only? Now that CO will have three, I wonder what Delta's reaction is going to be. Four?
Yellowtail From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 5282 posts, RR: 2 Reply 19, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 16741 times:
Perhaps an LHR slot from LH was the barganing chip LH used to get them to move to Star.
Also, someone mentioned EK codeshare..this is not as valuable since EK started services to IAH and JFK.
When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
MasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 4751 posts, RR: 7 Reply 20, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 16570 times:
Quoting Ncflyer (Reply 9): From what I could tell there was a big drop off in traffic to LGW, probably due to cannibalization of the CDG flight.
According to British CAA data, LGW-CLE traffic was down 15% in June but down only 3% in July. I wouldn't call that a big drop - loads were still over 70%. Nevertheless, you may very well be right that the route is dead for 2009.
Ncflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 447 posts, RR: 2 Reply 21, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 16483 times:
Not even a mention of CLE in the press release. That's pretty telling. Loads over 70%? Aren't most European flights in the high 80s or 90s in the dead of summer?
Panamair From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4595 posts, RR: 25 Reply 22, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 16344 times:
Quoting CODC10 (Reply 17):
DL's slot timing, in particular, at LHR really isn't competitive for business travelers. I'm sure that, given the choice, at least some premium pax would prefer their prime LGW US departures/arrivals to the off-hour choices currently offered from Heathrow.
Actually, that's a misconception and not entirely true. When one looks closely at DL's JFK-LHR schedules vs. CO's current EWR-LHR schedules (each has 2 flights daily each way currently), you will notice that only one of DL's flights in one direction may be somewhat uncompetitive for the business traveler:
NYC-LHR:
Morning flight: both DL and CO have the same schedule - pretty much
Evening flight: CO has the better one arriving at 6:45am while DL's arrives at 9:25am - here, yes DL isn't as competitive.
LHR-NYC:
Morning flight: DL's leaves LHR around 2 hours earlier than CO's - one can actually argue here that for the UK-based business traveler, DL004 which arrives JFK before noon, is actually a better proposition than the CO29 which arrives EWR after 1pm - more of the day left for work, etc. with the DL flight. In fact, with DL004, one can actually make a lunch appointment in NYC if one combines it with the US helicopter ride.
Evening flight: DL leaves LHR at around 5pm while CO's flight to EWR leaves at 4pm. If you're a business traveler wrapping up work in London, the DL flight gives you an extra hour - how is that uncompetitive with CO?
Overall summary: DL's schedule on the eastbound may be uncompetitive on one of the two flights, but on the westbound, DL's may actually be even more convenient than CO's.
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 15814 posts, RR: 50 Reply 23, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 16523 times:
Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 13): LGW will become a niche market for US carriers. DL/NW have large enough LGW operations to justify keeping them
Nope. DL/NW has no reason to not consolidate on one London airport given the opportunity.
COEI2007 From Vanuatu, joined Jan 2007, 1912 posts, RR: 6 Reply 24, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 16294 times:
Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 12): A shame, many people in the south of England much prefer using LGW.
It will be ironic, if the net effect of open skies is US carriers spending a fortune on LHR slots to chase the pot of gold there, while the likes of BA expand in their place at LGW...
I'm sure BA are even happier now, as many of the J pax who prefer to fly CO ex LGW and avoid the mess of LHR, can now enjoy BA ex LGW!
CO must be doing well ex LHR if they are to go 3 daily and drop LGW altogether. Its funny how things change so quickly in the airline industry, with LGW previously having 6 daily flights during the summer from CO!
25 MasseyBrown: Still, it wasn't a huge y-o-y traffic drop. The route was discontinued a month earlier than the original plan, however; so, it's reasonable to assume
26 STT757: Perhaps VS will consider EWR-LGW once again, that was their original route they launched in 1984. Then when they got Heathrow Access they moved all th
27 Viscount724: Am I correct that CO's changes means one less U.S.-London flight than at present, i.e. an overall reduction in capacity? That was only because they we
28 Mbm3: I am curious to see the schedule for the new flight, which does not seem to be loaded yet. I am guessing it will be a 752 judging on the press release
29 Readytotaxi: Who is going to be bidding for the vacant slots at LGW, who has some spending money available in these dire times?
30 GlobeEx: Never thought about this one. Maybe LH made them an offer they couldn't refuse . And in fact, if they really will end up making a similar agreement w
31 Planesarecool: Considering that last winter, Gatwick had 4 daily NYC flights (3x 767-300 with DL/ZX, 1x 757-200 with CO), and this winter it will have just one 777
32 Commavia: We'll see. I'm not saying that Delta (and/or Northwest) will be pulling out of Gatwick tomorrow. However, that being said, if two of the three strong
33 OA412: I wouldn't say they're far superior. If you take a look at Panamairs post that I've quoted below you'll see a good analysis of each airline's slots.
34 Mbm3: I don't know if this switch to LHR is a matter of LGW not working for CO, but perhaps maybe because they want/need the widebodies someplace else. Plu
35 MasseyBrown: http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2...continental_drops_some_london.html Cleveland newspaper reports that CLE-LGW (and presumably EWR/IAH) will resum
36 DeltAirlines: I agree with Commavia in that DL/NW won't be pulling out of LGW tomorrow. However, I think it's going to happen within the next two years. NW current
37 WorldTraveler: I wouldn't either but the combined DL/NW operation at LGW is larger than 4 flights/day. LGW and LHR are two separate markets and the new carriers (CO
38 Yellowtail: I suggested LH much earlier in the thread. Considering that they ain't many left at LGW...this is probably a safe "on the record" quote LGW is turnin
39 Co/ba: Such a shame. I almost exclusively used LGW. If I did use LHR I would return via LGW. So much easier. I will miss LGW.
40 Travelin man: I would argue that the ONLY reason AA maintained presence at LGW was because DFW (and RDU) were not Bermuda 2 cities. The evidence to support my clai
41 Commavia: AA only operated to Gatwick because of Bermuda II. That much is clear by their abrupt departure from Gatwick this year. I had hoped that AA would sti
42 United1: Are they adding a flight? I only count 4... NW 31 752 DTW DL 11 764/763 ATL DL 59 763 ATL DL 37 763 CVG
43 Incitatus: Yes but in air service the larger city/airport or the most preferred point of service gets an inordinate amount of service compared to #2. It is a ty
44 Planesarecool: Hardly. The slots left by Continental will be easily filled by other airlines.
45 MaverickM11: The combined DL/NW operation is 27 weekly flights, which works out to less than 4 flights a day.
46 MasseyBrown: Since the link I cited above claimed CO said they will return for the summer of 2009, maybe CO has been able to lease their winter slots for some Car
47 MaverickM11: I think you need to be a major player in the London market to make more than one airport work, all things (slots/gates/schedule) being equal. And if
48 ANITIX87: Agreed. The LGW-EWR flight is phenomenal because you can avoid LHR. I loved flying out of LGW on CO this summer. There are two CO flights to EWR on s
49 Panamair: Times are correct. It's that "in-between" period where the time difference between NYC and LON is 4 hours, not the usual 5 hours.
50 COflyerBOS: The first thing that pops into my mind regarding IAH is how the non-stop EK route from IAH-DXB must be hurting CO and the codeshare with EK at LGW. Un
52 EADC8: Not necessarily. The article is quoting what is currently in use to both LHR and LGW. If they are pulling IAH -LGW , then that opens up a 764 to use
53 Mbm3: Well I can confirm that the late flight from LHR on CO19 has changed times slightly and has swapped equipment to a 752 per schedule change notificatio
54 Sac: Both IAH-LHR flights are going to be operated by the 777.
55 DTWAGENT: I feel that any airline in the US that is service LGW should keep it up. Not a whole lot of people like to go thru or into LHR. Besides LGW has to be
56 St530: My thought exactly. Source for this? I hope it's true!
57 St530: Well, I answered my own question by looking at the schedule after Oct. 25, and indeed you are correct. They tinkered with the schedule a bit, now we
58 Viscount724: Daylight Savings Time (Summer Time in Europe) ends the first Sunday in November in the U.S., a week later than in Europe where it ends the last Sunda
59 Gatwickgunner: Will the last airline to leave Gatwick please turn the lights out!
60 Humberside: Easyjet and Flybe would be contenders Out of all the US airlines that were at LGW pre-open skies I had expected that if only one remained then it wou
61 Max Q: As I said, big mistake, plenty of business out of both airports, no need to sacrifice LGW which many people prefer.
62 Brilondon: Why? If that were the case, CO and all the other airlines that are now flying into LHR would have stayed at LGW. This is the reality of the market an
63 CODC10: I would bet IAH-CDG gets the IAH-LGW 764, the IAH-CDG 777 goes to LHR, and EWR-LHR gets 777/762/752. If my estimation is correct, that would leave a 7
64 Klwright69: So it appears CO will have a single 757 flight from CLE to LGW during the summer... Will this really happen? Is it worth it? Since AA wrapped things u
65 Luckyone: I think that has something, though certainly not entirely, to do with the demographic distribution of the area and the fact that the New York metropo
66 Alangirvan: As CO progresses into Star membership, there will be another airline to partner with. If the codeshare with Virgin has to end, because of CO new relat
67 PSU.DTW.SCE: I agree with you. Because of the NW+DL+AF+KL relationship, and the position of the US hubs in DTW & ATL, they will likely be able to sustain LGW serv
68 Ikramerica: It's possible that LGW will be seasonal from CLE and EWR both. With the cost of slots at LHR, it would make sense for CO to add summer capacity to LG
69 Klwright69: I read the article in reply #35 above.
70 WunalaYann: In the case of LHR and LGW, and the subsequent arbitrations made by airlines regarding which one to serve and how much, I think it would be prudent t
71 AznMadSci: I would be surprised if IAH-CDG gets downgraded to 764. I understand deemphasizing CDG as CO leaves SkyTeam for Star, but I thought strong O/D number
72 LAXdude1023: The 764 for the upcoming IAH-GIG has to come from somewhere. I wouldnt be quite as much. IAH-CDG has good O&D and premium traffic, but considering th
73 Klwright69: I definitely don't see that.. Those slots are costly.. a seasonal 757 to LHR? I don't see it. CLE to LHR can't support a widebody.
74 AznMadSci: I forgot about this new service! While IAH will go double daily 772 to LHR, EWR will be 772 and 752. I saw this in Nov 08, but not sure when this sta
75 David_itl: Just a random thought some people are suggesting that one of the EWR-MAN services is going to 767s next summer to make up capacity shortfall given BA
76 CODC10: I doubt it, EWR-LHR would be at the greatest need for additional slots during the high season, it really wouldn't make sense to operate at your highe
77 LAXdude1023: Right now, IAH-CDG as well as both IAH-LHR flights are on the schedules as 777's. That means the 777 for the flight is probabaly coming from somewher
78 MasseyBrown: I'm still skeptical. If CO's statement to the CLE newspaper about resuming LGW in 2009 is correct, it means their press release to the world was very
79 Diesel33: I thought it is coming from the EWR-ATH flight since it is going seasonal...
80 Ncflyer: Boy do I share the skepticism on CLE. The press release is filled with jargon about how their customers are demanding service to LHR, yet somehow pidd
81 CODC10: IAH-CDG CO10/11 is in the process of being loaded into the schedules as a 767-400ER. Check most dates after the start of the new year. IAH-HNL CO72/73
82 CLE757: Could it be that Continental is looking to add CLE-LHR service, but doesnt want to say no more CLE-LGW service until a slot is optained?
83 COGlobeTrotter: I believe they don't receive their 772’s until September, but correct me if I'm wrong.
84 Danfearn77: For any airport to have 5 operations each day from a foreign airline, that is quite impressive, even more so when LHR is down the road.
85 CALPSAFltSkeds: Keep in mind that the GIG operation requires almost a full aircraft to run the three days a week operation. The available aircraft time at IAH is bet
86 PSU.DTW.SCE: To some extent, the move to LHR may be to better align for its pending entry into Star. 2009 is going to be a year of transition for CO as it sunsets
87 Brilondon: This will be true untill terminal four is renovated for the Skyteam airlines and I suspect that they will be out of LGW all together.
88 HeeBeeGB: Delta LGW-JFK axed Zoom's LGW-JFK has gone Continental's LGW-EWR axed All good news for BA's upcoming daily LGW-JFK from w/08
89 AirbusA6: The US carriers cried foul for years about the lack of access to LHR, so I suppose on that basis it's logical that they should move all their operatio
90 CLE757: I disagree, the amount of traffic connecting in CDG is not that high. The route makes money on local traffic alone. I think CO is looking into CLE-LH
91 Bobnwa: So do you think that the people running DL, NW. CO, US, AA all were wrong dropping LGW service for LHR. Do you have any numbers to back up your claim
92 FUN2FLY: The first 777 delivery is in August 2009. I don't know the second unit's date. Regarding CLE, if BMI connections can help flow traffic, plus cargo, I
93 Ncflyer: Can CLE-FRA happen in a 757? I don't see it happening otherwise.
94 CLE757: I think a 757 could do CLE-FRA, but a 767-200 would be better and its not much bigger (as far as passenger capcity goes)
95 Greenair727: The 762 is slightly larger isn't it? If so, how about a CLE-FRA-AMS (with no local FRA-AMS traffic)? [with CLE-CDG and -LHR still separate flights]
96 Aisak: I agree with several posts up here. If LGW-EWR can't support a year round widebody I don't see CO doing LHR-EWR with either 757 or widebody. CLE-CDG
97 Brilondon: I don't completely agree with that assessment of BA. They, in my opinion, are not better then CO or DL. VS is better then most of the airlines althou
98 Viscount724: The U.S. carriers aren't the only ones that consider LHR more desirable and profitable than LGW. Several carriers from other parts of the world were
99 Ikramerica: The 762 has about the same capacity for CO, but it has more BF seats and more cargo space. It could be configured for 15/177 or 20/163 in the future,
100 WorldTraveler: the 762 has costs that are much higher than the 757. CO is one of a relatively few airlines that operate the 762ER; other airlines recognized that th
101 2travel2know: If CLE and EWR need seasonal London flights and LHR doesn't have slots, why LGW then?, CO could save some $$ and fly between CLE/EWR and STN or even
102 Thomasphoto60: I highly doubt it. Houston is not a 'Virgin' type destination, i.e. hip, trendy, leisure/ business destination, ect... Thomas
103 2travel2know: Hope no Texan reads that comment. It may work for VS but with smaller wide-bodies or combi aircraft, but VS doesn't fly those.
104 LAXdude1023: Thomas is right. VS wont be flying to Houston or Texas. Houston is a business destination with very little tourism. Its a city that is fun if you hav
105 102IAHexpress: I guess the folks over at CityPass made a mistake in adding Houston to their tourist Network? http://www.citypass.com/press/releas...th-CityPass-dest
106 LAXdude1023: It really makes no difference. It doesnt change the fact that Houston is a city of business, not tourism. Having read many of your posts, I know youl
107 102IAHexpress: The more and more you post about Houston, the more evident it becomes that you are not very credible about talking about this city.
108 AznMadSci: OK you two, enough! Right now, we need to make sure Houston will come out fine after Ike comes to town!
109 Ikramerica: They didn't leave that impression. From the PR: That is a pretty good indicator to me that LGW would be seasonal, with CLE and likely EWR service dur
110 MasseyBrown: For the casual reader (most of their intended audience), they did. It takes a nuanced reading to turn one hyphenated modifier into a statement of int
111 MasseyBrown: CO has posted the new schedules: EWR-LHR 10:00 752 19:30 772 22:25 762 22:25 is the exact departure time of VS. LHR-EWR 0930 772 1135 762 1440 752
112 LHR777: Here's the Winter schedule, with flight numbers and aircraft types - Tentative Winter schedule looks like this - EWR-LHR CO18 DEP 0900 ARR 2120 B757-2
113 Ikramerica: It doesn't do any such thing. It says that they are adding a flight the LHR. It talks about all the other locations they serve in the UK. It says the
114 LHR777: That schedule is only valid for one week, during time-change (BST to GMT in the UK).
117 CALPSAFltSkeds: Is this really the schedule? The 752 arrives at 2120 and doesn't depart until 1540 the next day? That takes two full units to operate. Beside the 752
118 777gk: My nuanced reading of your comment is that you aren't sold on the permanent closure of CO/LGW. I would have to agree with that assessment (if I am on
119 Aisak: It's all down to slots. Their 2120 arrival slot requires a daylight flight leaving EWR early in the morning. That's probably why CO decided the fligh
120 FlyCaledonian: So has Cologne/Bonn been dropped? Currently CO110/111 are the EWR-CGN flights.
121 BCA2005: With the start of the winter schedules we will being seeing the addition of 2 daily flights on LHR-EWR, both CO111 and AI111!
122 Humberside: Yes, it was announced as part of wider cutbacks a couple of months ago
123 Atmx2000: It's because the combination of JFK and EWR are not comparable to LHR and LGW. JFK is the largest NY-NJ airport but is located at some distance to th
124 LHR777: The last CGN-EWR service operated on September 3rd.
128 SSTsomeday: What I suspect is that it's expensive to keep a base somewhere if there are only 2 flights a day into there, especially when there is another base ne
129 MasseyBrown: The Wall Street disaster has probably shrunk the NYC-LON market by the equivalent of 2 or 3 777's a day. It will be interesting to see how much and ho
130 SSTsomeday: Yeah - as if the airline industry wasn't hurting enough... Bad timing.
131 AirbusA6: The pot of gold that all the new LHR carriers have been fighting over may have just vanished...I imagine a lot of the mega rich merchant banker types
132 Joeman: CO paid something like $200 million for the privilege? OK...
133 Joeman: CO paid something like $200 million for the privilege? OK...
134 Pa747sp: I was working at LGW when CO started ops there in 1984. In fact, I checked in the first flight. By my reckoning, that is 24 years. I guess you are re
135 MasseyBrown: Perhaps adding to the reliability of CO's promise is the report from the British CAA that CLE-LGW traffic in August was 4% ahead of August, 2007. Tha
136 Ikramerica: Right. And having an EWR-LGW flight that arrives an departs LGW at the same time would add nominal expense and add needed summer lift to London for l
137 MasseyBrown: MAN Ferrostaal's quiet announcement of moving their US headquarters from Houston to Cleveland would seem to make this close to a sure thing; OTOH may
138 CLE757: Interesting where did you hear about this?
139 ARGinLON: Are you joking? Daddy Bush is asking tax payers to put down USD700BN to rescue the financials so business as usual in the big apple.
141 Hohd: It appears that there will be CLE-LGW service next summer. The CO website is accepting reservations for next June on this sector. As for myself, I am
142 EMAman: There never much sense in keeping any CO operation at LGW. I think all of those who gained access to LHR under open skies have campaigned so hard over
143 Ikramerica: That's not what is happening. It's not business as usual, and ultimately, the taxpayers will make a profit on this deal just as they did with the RTC
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3326 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6225 posts, 
From Puerto Rico, joined Nov 2005, 865 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5918 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3789 posts, 
From Vanuatu, joined Jan 2007, 1912 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
