Gilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2880 posts, RR: 1 Posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8558 times:
I have done a search and couldn't find anything on here about this... I suppose its not really all that major, but was worth a thread as there was a few changes!
The main one being, from September US Airways will finally pull the plug on Gatwick's direct connection to Philadelphia with a 757-200...
After LHR was opened up last year under Open Skies, US Airways decided to start a LHR-PHL service, the single daily service will now be US Airways' only connection to Philadelphia from London. It seems the route is being upgraded from the 767-200 currently flying the route to an A330-200 throughout the Winter and Summer 2010 schedule. (It was however last year an A330-300!)
Many would argue the Heathrow to Philadelphia is extremely poorly timed, with it departing at 1.05pm. Maybe between now and next summer US Airways may decide to try and purchase further slots at LHR to operate a second daily service earlier in the day?
The Gatwick to Charlotte service seems to remain unchanged with a late morning departure and continue to use a A330-300. But I suppose it may now only be a matter of time until US Airways decides to consolidate it services all at LHR, but this will be dependent on available slots and the right price!
The news of LGW loosing PHL cannot be good for Gatwick... It now no longer has any direct flights to the North East of the USA from the end of the summer 09 schedule, its hard to imagine a few years back you had the likes of VS, BA, DL, Z4 and CO all operating flights to the New York area (at one time or another) and US use to fly up to 2x daily PHL.
On a side note, I noticed US Airways have loaded flights for BHX-PHL for next years summer schedule operating 5x weekly, which seems good when there were rumours it was not doing all that well currently.
MAN-PHL remains unchanged and continues to fly a good old A330-300 daily. Which ironically mean US now have more capacity out MAN to PHL than they have operating out of LHR. Also US Airways offer connections with BMI when doing a search on their website to fly LHR-MAN-PHL if you want an earlier arrival into the USA!
With the freeing up of a 757-200, I wonder where this will operate to?
Australis From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 96 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 8303 times:
Seems most of the US airlines are just too one-sighted and thinks LHR is the holy grail, which at the moment, it doesnt seem to be. I know that perhaps operating to 2 airports in the same city could canabilise profits, but perhaps the passenger wants more choice considering the hell-hole LHR can be at some times during the day???
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31116 posts, RR: 74 Reply 6, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 8149 times:
Quoting Australis (Reply 4): Seems most of the US airlines are just too one-sighted and thinks LHR is the holy grail, which at the moment, it doesnt seem to be.
Indeed. It is just so one-sighted to consolidate London operations into one airport to reduce costs in employees, airport facilities, ground handling, gate leases and other expenses. So dumb of the airlines!
Delta and US Airways will likely be out of Gatwick within 12 months, IMO.
Australis From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 96 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7809 times:
Quoting Avek00 (Reply 5): Most every longhaul pax airline on Earth that flies to London similarly views LHR as the holy grail -- because it is. LHR routinely commands higher yields and greater premium traffic than LGW
Not denying that. Just thought LGW would be a viable alternative even now.
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 6): Indeed. It is just so one-sighted to consolidate London operations into one airport to reduce costs in employees, airport facilities, ground handling, gate leases and other expenses. So dumb of the airlines!
Actually, probably be the same as operating out ex-Gatwick prior to all jumping ship. Maybe even more considering that LHR is one of the busiest airports in the world and the costs could be higher than at LGW.
Anyways, just my 2 cents. I for one hope all US airlines flying to LHR are making money on the routes, thats all.
Chepos From Puerto Rico, joined Dec 2000, 5967 posts, RR: 12 Reply 9, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7776 times:
I believe PHL to LHR will be departing earlier come fall, additionally, once LHR was opened flights to LGW from PHL became kind of redundant. CLT on the other hand Im sure will retain service to LGW until another LHR slot is obtained- currently the flight is a prety good performer. I've met a couple of our ground staff at LGW and they are a very nice bunch I would hate if that station closes down.
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31116 posts, RR: 74 Reply 10, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7765 times:
Quoting Australis (Reply 8): Actually, probably be the same as operating out ex-Gatwick prior to all jumping ship. Maybe even more considering that LHR is one of the busiest airports in the world and the costs could be higher than at LGW.
The point is that to be competitive, the airlines must operate out of Heathrow. The choice is not "Heathrow or Gatwick;" the choice is "Heathrow and Gatwick or just Heathrow." Clearly, "just Heathrow" is the right answer, especially in this economy.
Gilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2880 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7386 times:
Quoting Usairways85 (Reply 7): Doesn't BA fly LGW-JFK? I thought they swapped MAN-JFK with LGW-JFK?
This is true, and despite what I read that the route has had good loads, BA have decided to stop the route from October and will just be flying from LHR to the NYC area...
It is a shame about all the consolidation of the flights to the USA being consolidated to LHR, people seem to forget the flights do not just support London but all the neighbouring counties around London too, the south east of the UK is one of the most populated regions in Europe. A journey from Essex or Kent to the likes of LHR could easily take 2-3 hours in rush hour and be in excess of 100 miles.
Skinny From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2008, 87 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7327 times:
Quoting Gilesdavies (Thread starter): On a side note, I noticed US Airways have loaded flights for bhx-PHL for next years summer schedule operating 5x weekly, which seems good when there were rumours it was not doing all that well currently.
Where did you get that information?
From what i gather loads are 80% average (source Banad) with some overbooked but then again as its not London i expect the doom mongers to harp up.
Brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3169 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 6908 times:
Quoting Runway23 (Reply 2): Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 1):
So which US carriers are gonna be left at LGW now?
US Airways to Charlotte
Delta Air Lines to Atlanta.
Last one out please turn the lights out.
Quoting TheGMan (Reply 3): I don't see why everyone wants so many slots at such a already crowded airport. I find nothing wrong with LGW it is easy to get into London from LGW by rail. I wish it were that easy LGA to NYC.
Going to London is just part of it. Although it is just as easy from LHR when you use the Heathrow Express I find. Another reason to go to LHR are the connections to the rest of the world.
Quoting Australis (Reply 8): Anyways, just my 2 cents. I for one hope all US airlines flying to LHR are making money on the routes, thats all.
Most likely they are making more money or they would not be going to LHR.
Thestooges From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6499 times:
Whatever LGW loses in trans-atlantic flights it will more than easily make up for it by the addition of more low-cost short-haul European routes from airlines like FR, U2, BE and EI.
The only reason why LGW ever had so many trans-atlantic flights was because of Bermuda II, and now that it's gone, the situation is becoming what it always should have been.
The set-up with Londons 5 airports now will be that LHR is the premium long-haul gateway, LCY will serve the short-haul European business travellers, and LGW, STN and LTN will cater for the "overflow" traffic i.e. primarily the low-cost and the holiday charter market. Basically now that Bermuda II is gone, LGW is turning into a combined LTN and STN but just to the south of London.
OP3000 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 1678 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6174 times:
With the redundancy its understandable that loads to LGW would go down a lot. The other factor in LHR vs. LGW in a case like this is connections to airlines which fly to places US doesn't, whether it be alliance partners (BD, SA, SQ, TK and in the future AI) or even non-alliance carriers flying to the Middle East, Asia and Africa (such as LY and EK).
TimRees From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 344 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5938 times:
Quoting OA260 (Reply 19): Shame as LGW is a nice airport to go through.
The north terminal is very good but I hate the south terminal. It just caters for a different client group with horrid restaurants and no decent shops to talk of. It's like the 'cheap end' of the high street.
Heathrow, especially terminal 5, is quite a different experience and I'd much rather fly through there than LGW given the choice, any day!
Connection-wise, this is not an issue for me, as I live in London!
OA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 24891 posts, RR: 60 Reply 23, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5060 times:
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 21): Absolute and utter nonsense! It does nothing of the sort.
Yeah those cheapo stores like Harrods and Hugo Boss,Caviar House, Kurt Geiger.
Sarcasm aside , I like the shopping area in LGW South and its bright and spacious and I have got some good deals there. Last time I got my Samsung NC10 Netbook in Dixons Tax Free and it was alot cheaper.
OLYMPIC AIR - ΟΛΥΜΠΙΑΚΗ "Η ΕΛΛΑΔΑ ΨΗΛΑ" "GREECE FLYING HIGH"
787KQ From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 547 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4810 times:
LGW is sort of like Newark was to JFK years ago...why bother.
Without an major airline connecting hub, one that flies long haul, you are not as assured of multiple options if you are stuck. If BMI had concentrated there would have been good, but they never had a good strategy.
25 Panamair: No, it's going back to a 763ER for the winter... Why is a 1:05pm departure poorly timed? It's actually quite decent...
26 OP3000: Agreed. I think though that LGW will be back to more prominence in the future, albeit without the legacy carriers' help. One of the several low cost
27 Cubsrule: JFK and ATL are probably the only airports north of I-10 that can support service to LGW. In that regard, it might be around longer than we think.
28 MAH4546: JFK can't support Gatwick, either. BA is ending the route in October due to a very poor performance. Atlanta-Gatwick will be gone once Delta acquires
29 MDS: Side note -- I haven't seen LGW-CVG with DL mentioned.. has that been axed too?