Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How Is BA's LGW-JFK Service Performing?  
User currently offlineBCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 16
Posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 8503 times:

Now that this service has been operating for four weeks, does anyone know what loads are like and if the yields have proved to be 25% lower than on LHR-JFK flights, as has been the average for full-schedule service operations from Gatwick when compared with Heathrow?

With the demise of Zoom UK and the US airlines moving to LHR, maybe initial indications show the route is doing well?


MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEdina From United Kingdom, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 742 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 8328 times:

Prior to 9/11 LGW-JFK was always the lowest yielding route of BA's l/haul network from the airport.


Worked on - Caravelle Mercure A300 A320 F27 SD3-60 BAe146 747-100/200/400 DC10-30 767 777 737-400 757 A319 A321
User currently offlineBCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 8272 times:



Quoting Edina (Reply 1):

I thought BA was forced to surrender the LGW-JFK route (which operated via MAN) in the late 1980s, as a condition of its takeover of British Caledonian? They only returned when services recommenced in late October this year.

 scratchchin 



MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
User currently offlineEdina From United Kingdom, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 742 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 8262 times:

Certainly between 93-94 & 2001 the route operated direct on everything from DC10s, 747 Classics, 767s & 777s........suspended very soon after 9/11.


Worked on - Caravelle Mercure A300 A320 F27 SD3-60 BAe146 747-100/200/400 DC10-30 767 777 737-400 757 A319 A321
User currently offlineHeeBeeGB From Finland, joined Sep 2007, 424 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 8086 times:

Config on the aircraft used is 14F / 48J / 40W / 122/124M

I don't have any data on yields but can say that the flight is ALWAYS full in economy, almost always oversold (often by 20 or more), however WTP and club are usually only half full if that and FIRST normally sees just 1 or 2 passengers.

[Edited 2008-11-14 14:19:49]

User currently offlineHeeBeeGB From Finland, joined Sep 2007, 424 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 8074 times:

Quoting Edina (Reply 1):
Prior to 9/11 LGW-JFK was always the lowest yielding route of BA's l/haul network from the airport.

I know loads aren't everything and can't tell the full story, but when focusing on just the premium cabin loads over the first 4 weeks of operation I would tend to say that is the case onh the re-incarnated LGW-JFK

Quoting BCAL (Reply 2):
I thought BA was forced to surrender the LGW-JFK route (which operated via MAN) in the late 1980s, as a condition of its takeover of British Caledonian? They only returned when services recommenced in late October this year.

BA operated direct LGW-JFK with 767's which was stopped after 9/11

[Edited 2008-11-14 14:22:39]

User currently offlineAPYu From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2007, 830 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 7962 times:

Given time it will do ok. Its a godsend to have the choice of Heathrow and Gatwick. I would imagine the outbound is less popular than the inbound JFK-LGW as lots of us business folk will do a day in the office, fly to JFK on an early evening departure rather than a morning but use the LGW service on the way back thus travelling LHR-JFK-LGW


We'd like to welcome in particular our Executive Club members and those joining us from our Oneworld alliance partners.
User currently offlineBAViscount From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2338 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 7885 times:



Quoting Edina (Reply 3):
Certainly between 93-94 & 2001 the route operated direct on everything from DC10s, 747 Classics, 767s & 777s

I flew LGW-JFK direct on a BA DC10 in early September 1991. Pretty full load back then too from what I remember.



Ladies & gentlemen this is Captain Tobias Wilcock welcoming you aboard Coconut Airways flight 372 to Bridgetown Barb
User currently offlineDavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7360 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 7870 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting HeeBeeGB (Reply 4):
I don't have any data on yields but can say that the flight is ALWAYS full in economy, almost always oversold (often by 20 or more), however WTP and club are usually only half full if that and FIRST normally sees just 1 or 2 passengers.

I would hope the route is pulled immediately as BA's struggling to make profits as I daresay MAN was pulled with what I would expect oversubscribed Y and not quite as popular Y+ and J. OR better still, BA keep the route, end up losing money and go belly-up in the face of going after a shrinking number of passengers wanting to pay over the odds.


User currently onlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 9, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 7868 times:

Given the abandonment of LGW by carriers on this side of the pond, I think there is room for BA to serve the route....LGW-catchment area is large and there are buisnesses/pax in the area which prefer LGW over LHR....

The only "down-side" to this is the current state of the global economy... Sad



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineJER757 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 350 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7739 times:



Quoting David_itl (Reply 8):

Slightly bitter it seems?

London fares would be generally higher than the fares charged from MAN (at least they will be once the route's established). As reported here Y is nearly always full (with a bigger cabin than the 767 on MAN-JFK), I'm willing to bet Y+, C & F will pick up. We also don't know how many corporate contracts BA have regarding this service; South London and the Brighton area has no shortage of big businesses who would much rather send their employees to LGW rather than LHR to travel.

Losing MAN-JFK was a shame without a doubt, But considering the cutbacks over the years from the regions it was inevitable - having a single 767 based out of London with crews ferrying and nightstopping all over the place for one daily flight is hardly effective.

In the "current economic climate" (my god I hate that phrase), every airline needs to save money where it can - BA is making difficult decisions to do so, which is why its one of a very few number of legacy airlines still in profit this year.



Gale force fog... don't you love it?
User currently offlineHeeBeeGB From Finland, joined Sep 2007, 424 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7560 times:

Although MAN-JFK was a good performer in Y it was never as full as many profess it to have been and oversold once ina blue moon.

The advantage LGW-JFK has over MAN-JFK is that is can attract London and South-East bound passengers who may travel LGW-JFK-LHR or LHR-JFK-LGW whereas MAN never had this advantage (albeit a very small one!), also offering a 4-class service gives LGW-JFK commonality where FIRST passengers can fly F whatever their London airport.

I wouldn't be surprised if premium demand does pick up, especially when the economy does but LGW-JFK is mainly a leisure route and prominently O&D. There are some inbound connections, chiefly from Italy (for which LGW actually has quite good connection possiblities compared with other countries)

MAN-JFK was an odd-ball route, I understand why people with a vested MAN interest are unhappy at BA and especially it's lack of longhaul operations from the airport but having one daily 767 MAN-JFK which after years wasn't profitable (as I understand) simply didn't make sense, LGW is a 777 base and it's JFK service can compliment the exisiting LHR NYC services, I was surprised when BA re-launched LGW-JFK and wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't have a long shelf-life but we shall see.


User currently offlineContinentalEWR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3762 posts, RR: 13
Reply 12, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7269 times:

Look for BA's JFK-LGW route to be cut. There is a lot of capacity on the NYC-LON market these days, which, in boom times, isn't so much of an issue, as this is one of the busiest intl
routes in the world, but with CO, BA, DL, AA, AI, VS, KU, all flying it, and business travellers being the bread and butter of this route (most of which do not fly to LGW), this route makes no sense and was designed to protect a slot, nothing more.


User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7168 times:



Quoting ContinentalEWR (Reply 12):
and business travellers being the bread and butter of this route

I'm glad you think that's the case. In which case I should, perhaps, just redirect the hundreds of the non much vaunted 'business pax' which I send week-in and week-out on the route, and thus leave the airlines you mention to just run their 777's, etc in the obviously sole importance business configurations! Any ideas on how successful that would be?


User currently offlineAlanUK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7155 times:



Quoting ContinentalEWR (Reply 12):
was designed to protect a slot

Does BA really need to protect slots at LGW?? With all the short haul routes that BA pulled out of LGW, surely losing slots there is not big deal!


User currently offlineCol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2093 posts, RR: 22
Reply 15, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6173 times:

We need to stop the complaining about BA and MAN. BA can only operate in markets which serve its cost base. BMI are the same. MAN's future is feeding the hubs of the airlines it has presently. What it does need is a feed for these carriers, to establish a mini hub. BMI could feed the Star carriers, as long as it does not push to feed those poor souls via LHR - please gives us a break!!!
Skyteam need to get an alliance set up with a feed, flybe would be a good fit, but they still have the BA millstine around their neck. They need to dump any BA relationship, as it will do them no good going forward. BA is an airline in an alliance with a restrictive future. I think they own 15% of Flybe? Buy it back quickly!!!


User currently offlineJER757 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 350 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6071 times:



Quoting HeeBeeGB (Reply 11):
oversold once ina blue moon.

Hmmm maybe the whole a/c never oversold but Y was certainly oversold almost daily on the short amount of time I spent in MAN, requiring lots of Y-W & W-C upgrades.

As others have pointed out LGW-JFK-LHR is much more of an option for most than MAN-JFK-LHR.

As for protecting slots - I agree with the AlanUK, is there really a point for BA slot protecting LGW? If there was surely a smaller a/c on a shorter route would suffice, eg the recently withdrawn LGW-NQY.



Gale force fog... don't you love it?
User currently offlineAPYu From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2007, 830 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6011 times:



Quoting ContinentalEWR (Reply 12):
this route makes no sense and was designed to protect a slot, nothing more.

There are much cheaper ways to protect slots than run a JFK service. But as many others have stated, theres no real need to at Gatwick,



We'd like to welcome in particular our Executive Club members and those joining us from our Oneworld alliance partners.
User currently offlineHeeBeeGB From Finland, joined Sep 2007, 424 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5616 times:



Quoting JER757 (Reply 16):
Y was certainly oversold almost daily on the short amount of time I spent in MAN, requiring lots of Y-W & W-C upgrades

Thursday/Friday MAN departures were very busy in Y due to people taking 3/4 night breaks in NYC but other days it wasn't oversold in Y very often at all but even if it was, as with the LGW service, Y isn't the big earner, the F/J/W are the cabins need to be as full as possible.


User currently offlineRutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 2956 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5502 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quote:
Quoting ContinentalEWR (Reply 12):
was designed to protect a slot

Does BA really need to protect slots at LGW?? With all the short haul routes that BA pulled out of LGW, surely losing slots there is not big deal!

Who said they were slot sitting at LGW ?

Surely the slot protection is at the JFK end! !

As others have illuded to this service whilst using a 772 over out stationed 763 probably isn't much better than MAN-JFK is in operating profit potential.

It will go by April 2010 with slot at JFK utilised by either Elite or Openskys!


User currently offlineAPYu From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2007, 830 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5307 times:



Quoting Rutankrd (Reply 19):
Who said they were slot sitting at LGW ?

Surely the slot protection is at the JFK end! !

Not if the AA thing goes ahead - they may have to give up some JFK slots.



We'd like to welcome in particular our Executive Club members and those joining us from our Oneworld alliance partners.
User currently offlineADRIANGALT From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5266 times:

As usual, the thread as gone off track, I flew LGW-JFK a few time in the past on the 767, always full in all cabins and great service.... I am sure they will do well on this route this time.

As for the slot issue, I am sure BA are hanging and waiting to see who buys LGW. VS and EZY are proposing to purchase and " base a substantial amount of aircraft there". BA does not give up without a fight in its own backyard!!!


User currently offlineRutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 2956 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5261 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quote:
Quoting Rutankrd (Reply 19):
Who said they were slot sitting at LGW ?

Surely the slot protection is at the JFK end! !

Not if the AA thing goes ahead - they may have to give up some JFK slots.

Exactly the point of slot sitting .
A tradable slot that could be given away IF necessary whilst retaining the core LHR-JFK service level.

But with phase 1 of Openskys combined with the current economical situation the landscape really has changed and the BA/AA anti-trust close co-operation should now go ahead soon with limited if any slot hand backs at either LHR or JFK needed.

Certainly not the original what was it something like 200 At Heathrow alone .

Just look at Heathrow today All the main US operators plus AIr France (LAX suspended but JFK to start in spring) are already their!

But its not turning out to be the pot of gold is It?

Denver -UA terminated
Seattle - NW terminated
Philadelphia- US reduced from A333 to B762
Detroit - BA terminated
Continental- Newark with B752 -Two flights with B752s (Well i know that the its just 1 seat different with the B762 but cargo loads reduced )


User currently offlineCol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2093 posts, RR: 22
Reply 23, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 5243 times:



Quoting ADRIANGALT (Reply 21):
BA does not give up without a fight in its own backyard!!!

BA used to have the whole UK as its backyard. Bases in GLA, MAN, BHX and others I think. When the going got tough, who backed out of the fight? Don't see BA at any of those places other than flights to London. LGW is probably the next to see more reductions, with BA focusing on slot restricted LHR, which by having a slot monopoly it is certain to make money.

So when the going gets tough, BA get going - to LHR.


User currently offlineCityofAthens From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 5173 times:

Quoting Col (Reply 23):
BA used to have the whole UK as its backyard. Bases in GLA, MAN, BHX and others I think. When the going got tough, who backed out of the fight? Don't see BA at any of those places other than flights to London. LGW is probably the next to see more reductions, with BA focusing on slot restricted LHR, which by having a slot monopoly it is certain to make money.

So when the going gets tough, BA get going - to LHR.

but before ...

Quoting Col (Reply 15):
We need to stop the complaining about BA and MAN. BA can only operate in markets which serve its cost base.

Is this the same person?!

Col, I think you may need to take your own advice, not just give it to others.

[Edited 2008-11-16 07:09:19]

25 Gsosbee : I would be shocked if there was not sufficient traffic to support at least one LGW-JFK turn daily. There are daily flights to two NYC airports, so not
26 Planesarecool : They've been upset about BA 'pulling out of the regions' for years. Every thread about BA usually turns out to include something about how they shoul
27 Col : Unless there are two of me, let me check..... Nope just one. There are two points here. 1) BA leaving MAN. Which is good for my carriers. 2) BA does
28 HeeBeeGB : Oh don't say that you will have the MAN a.netters spitting feathers, still, BA have abandoned MAN, after all they are "London Airways", at least BMi
29 Trintocan : Well, do we always have to fight over BA and its presence or lack thereof in the regions of the UK? I think that we have to remember one thing, that L
30 Mutu : we should also not forget the geography of the UK and the complete lack of viabilty of regional longhaul flights for BA which simply erodes profits in
31 APYu : If you are to look at seatcounter and compare both LGW and LHR flights over the next few days, with only 2 or 3 exceptions availability on the LGW and
32 Kimberlyrj : Hi there I have worked the LGW-JFK service twice now and the first was around 60% full and the second was full in economy (thanks to two schools)… I
33 Hotelmode : But the LGW-JFK flights are worked by Gatwick crews without a CSD.
34 APYu : How does this affect the load of the flight? The LGW flights are cheaper to operate becuase of this (and other factors) - The entire crew are cheaper
35 A340600 : The crewing pattern wasn't really that bad. BA got a lot of work out of its LHRWW crew for the MAN JFK trip. They operated LHR EWR JFK MAN JFK EWR LH
36 Hotelmode : It doesn't. That wasnt the point i was making! A340600 knows what i meant.
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...
How Is BA Performing LON-DAR, EBB, LUN? posted Sat Feb 5 2005 12:39:42 by Pe@rson
How Is BA 777 Service To Sfo? posted Fri Jul 12 2002 00:48:11 by CV990
BA LGW-WAW Service, Why The Change Back To LHR? posted Mon Apr 21 2008 18:48:56 by BY188B
How Is NW BDL-AMS-BDL Performing? posted Thu Apr 17 2008 08:14:25 by EmiratesUK
How Is Emirates DXB-IAH Service Doing? posted Thu Jan 31 2008 14:52:17 by BoeingFever777
How Is Transaero DME-HKG-SYD Performing? posted Wed Jan 23 2008 03:15:56 by NG1Fan
How Is AirTran's BWI-SEA Service Doing? posted Fri Jun 1 2007 21:28:30 by UsAirways16bwi
How Is BA Avod Installation Going? posted Wed Oct 25 2006 21:19:45 by Baflyer
How Is Song Doing JFK-NAS? posted Sun Dec 19 2004 22:00:33 by FA4B6
How Is The New NW Service In MKE Doing? posted Fri Aug 22 2003 05:17:17 by CALMSP