Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
If Bermuda II Isn't Lifted In The Next Few Years..  
User currently offlineEnglandair From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2000, 2228 posts, RR: 3
Posted (15 years 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3898 times:

If Bermuda II isn't lifted within the next few years, and so bmi british midland can't fly to the States from LHR, is it likely that they'll begin services to the States from Gatwick or Stansted?
They do currently have the right to fly from LGW to a few US destinations, but as they continue to expand will they try to cash in on the highly popular LON-USA flights?
I think they may serve afew longhaul destinations (non-US) from LHR in the next couple of years, but will they concentrate on US flights from MAN, or longhaul non-US from LHR, or will they try and serve the US from London?

What do you think would be the wisest, most realistic thing for bmi to do?

ps. I can remember Cincinnati being one of the US cities they can fly to from LGW, but what are the rest?

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineJohnnybgoode From Germany, joined Jan 2001, 2187 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (15 years 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3816 times:

imho, as long as bmi will have small fleet of long-range aircraft, well, 330-200s, i highly doubt they´ll introduce major scheduled longhaul services from a 2nd departure city, especially not LGW. afaik, they don´t have any or at least no major services at LGW, don´t they?
regarding that CO is already, or soon going to, i don´t know, implement the first direct service between STN and the US, and whereas STN could cater a big market of people or companies or whatsoever that don´t like going to LHR because it´s too far or takes too long, i´d say that STN could have a small chance.
in my eyes, longrange flights, except to the US, from LHR could seem possible, but i highly doubt such a develop in the coming months.
however, i´m sure they trying to consolidate their small longhaul fleet at the beginning.
well, we just have to wait and see how their new services turn out...


If only pure sweetness was offered, why's this bitter taste left in my mouth.
User currently offlineEnglandair From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2000, 2228 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (15 years 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3813 times:

I'm not so sure.
Although (ofcourse) it doesn't mean they're going to fly them, bmi already has the right to LOADS of longhaul routes.
I think they'll only fly to a few US destinations and maybe a couple in Asia from MAN .

With bmi rummored to be in negotiations with Airbus to change their 8 A332 options to A340s, and with their many longhaul routes, I think that they are certainly hoping to expand quite abit in the next few years from LHR.

Just to point out, I am taliking in terms of YEARS, not months.
Only time will tell....

BTW, bmi currently have no flights to LGW.

User currently offlineCapt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (15 years 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3801 times:

I'm far more worried about LHR being overtaken by the likes of AMS, CDG & FRA than I am about the Bermuda II agreement.

Even if the BII agreement was amended, or scrapped altogether (which won't happen until the US allows UK airlines cabotage rights/access to their domestic mkt), LHR can't take anymore strain: it is bursting at the seams.

What I want to see, is T5 to be given the go-ahead straight away, and new plans for r/w's there-


upgrading the transport infrastructure in the UK (which is a complete disgrace), so that we can all zip around between all of the major UK cities and their airports in a very short time.

-That way, business travellers wouldn't mind getting a flight to the US from STN etc.-thus US airlines could forget about LHR (to a certain extent).

The consequences of not expanding LHR will be very gloomy for the likes of BA, who insist they must operate from there, and there alone.

(I have posted a thread in this week's The Economist which details their woes-it might have slipped to the previous page).

User currently offlineMah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 34575 posts, RR: 70
Reply 4, posted (15 years 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3771 times:

I though there has been direct service between STN and JFK for a while. I once flew an El Al 767 between STN and JFK, direct.

User currently offlineEnglandair From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2000, 2228 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (15 years 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3764 times:

Well Blue Fox Airlines hope to begin STN-JFK flights next year.

but anyway, back to bmi......

User currently offlineDeltAirlines From United States of America, joined May 1999, 9022 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (15 years 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3757 times:

Continental starts daily 757 EWR-STN flights next month, which will serve the New York region.


User currently offlineJohnboy From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2663 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (15 years 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3745 times:

Do I remember AA serving the short-lived STN-ORD several years ago, or was this a drug flashback?

User currently offlineLHSTR From Germany, joined Mar 2001, 226 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (15 years 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3738 times:

On COs onboard television show last week, they announced STN-EWR will be operated by B777!

User currently offlineLV-7772 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (15 years 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3734 times:

Could some one explain to me the Bermuda II agreement?
Not familiar with it?


User currently offlineCapt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (15 years 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3719 times:

This link should help:



User currently offlineLV-7772 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (15 years 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3711 times:

Thank you Capt.Picard, live long and prosper.  Smile


User currently offlineCapt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (15 years 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3708 times:


Sorry, that didn't have much relevant information!!

In my own words (and I stand to be corrected):

Only two US airlines (UA and AA) are able to operate between LHR and *specified* US airports.

Only two UK airlines (BA and VS) are able to operate between LHR and *specified* US airports.

This is at best, an inflexible agreement, and at worst, a pathetic state of affairs, which may well be keeping airfares artificially high.

The US says "give our other airlines access to LHR!".

The UK says "Certainly, give our airlines cabotage rights in the US, and we shall grant you your wish".

The US says "That's unfair, it's not as if we have much to gain from cabotage rights for our airlines in the UK, whereas the US is a much larger country; your beloved BA and others will gain a disproportionate advantage."

I don't know what the UK's response to that is, but obviously they still don't agree!

My question is whether it actually *worth* changing the agreement if LHR is not exactly in a position to accommodate more flights anyway!

First priority for the Britsh Gov't, should be to tell Uncle Sam to hold on, while we sort out the bloody mess at LHR, it needs expanding!!


User currently offlineThe777Man From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 6827 posts, RR: 54
Reply 13, posted (15 years 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3691 times:

It seems to me that even if they build T 5 at LHR, it only has two runways. I think they should build a new airport farther out from London and have four parallel runways like LAX or ATL. This will obviously take time and money but I think that's the only way to improve conditions and safety at the London airports. They could close LHR, LGW and LTN. Even if the new airport would be farther away, they could have highspeed rail lines to several railway stations in London. Even a new airport may not change Bermuda II since the US and UK have different objectives. As for BMI, I think they will continue to expand out of MAN. The777Man

Need a Boeing 777 Firing Order....Further to fly....LX and LH 777s
User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 61
Reply 14, posted (15 years 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3685 times:

Right heres what I think. I think London Heathrow is the best bet. I think that until it is expanded, it will mean that BMI will stay at Manchester. I also think that another runway and terminal at LHR is a priority, and the only people who are stopping it are the NIMBYS in the surrounding area. Another option at least in the short term would be to lift the night flight ban on the airport, or at least expand it say an hour either side of the limit. Either way, it will have to expand or it will die. Ideally, we need TWO new runways and TWO new terminals, plus better road access from the Centre of London, and another mainline rail link too. Then, you will have seven terminals, and four runways, which will go some way to releaving the congestion in the skies, becasue it is stacks that are causing the problems, and by cutting down on waiting time, ie: less time to wait for a runway slot, then stacks will be releaved making it easier and safer to fly into LHR. It will cost a lot of money but i am sure it will be worth it, as i feel strongly, that as the busiest airport in the world, it should be able to handle that business level without a problem, as air travel numbers will only rise. It may mean that the current cargo terminal and outbuildings are re-located, and the new runway built closer to the M25, and the terminal built almost on the hard shoulder. Surely road liks dont get any better! That area is mostly marsh and wetland, but it will have to go sooner or later. maybe it may be time for an underground terminal, on top of which the runway runs. Expensive yes, but it will save space, and the soil is a mixture of clay, chalk, and lime hardcore, which will make it easier to dig, and it is well suited to subterranean building projects. I dont know really, its just a thought, but these are new untested times, and it maybe time for such measures. Im sure the matter is well in hand, and will resolve itself soon, but i'd hate to see the airport lose its status, just because of some people who dont want triple sevens in their back yard. Actually screw it....How much do you wnat for the house?

What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineGKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 25337 posts, RR: 54
Reply 15, posted (15 years 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3675 times:

I think theat bmi will expand more from MAN to places such as JFK and maybe SFO. As for LHR, is there any room to build another runway and terminal??? The suggestion about a new airport makes sense though, but its unlikely to happen, but they wont shut down LGW,STN and LTN though.

When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
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...
Philippine Airlines In The Next Few Years posted Wed Jan 23 2002 04:42:16 by Ibizajet A330
A380 To Visit Iqaluit In The Next Few Days posted Fri Feb 3 2006 18:43:57 by Crank
A New Supersonic Airliner In The Next 10 Years posted Tue May 10 2005 23:22:29 by RootsAir
Peruvian Aviation In The Next Ten Years. posted Sun Jan 2 2005 20:14:23 by TACAA320
Canjet To Get 737-500's In The Next Few Months posted Sat Feb 7 2004 16:10:17 by CanadaEH
PDX In The Next Five Years? posted Thu Sep 25 2003 06:44:45 by Leneld
BOI In The Next Couple Years? posted Wed Sep 24 2003 01:58:17 by IloveBOI
Where Is WN Going In The Next 5 To 10 Years? posted Sun Feb 26 2006 23:51:24 by Nwab787techops
WSJ: $10bil In New BCA Orders In The Next Weeks posted Wed Nov 15 2006 06:42:28 by N328KF
Where Are Fares Going In The Next Year? posted Mon Nov 13 2006 19:05:09 by ATLAaron