Gilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2257 posts, RR: 2 Posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 6456 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?
TheGMan From United States, joined Nov 2008, 362 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 6203 times:
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.
Australis From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 87 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 6201 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???
Avek00 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 3254 posts, RR: 22 Reply 5, posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 6179 times:
Quoting Australis (Reply 4): Seems most of the US airlines are just too one-sighted and thinks LHR is the holy grail
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.
Thank you for choosing Continental Airlines, a member of the Star Alliance network.
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 25869 posts, RR: 77 Reply 6, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6047 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, 87 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5707 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, 5279 posts, RR: 15 Reply 9, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5674 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, 25869 posts, RR: 77 Reply 10, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5663 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, 2257 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5284 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, 45 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5225 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, 1498 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4806 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.
Having low expectations means you won't be disapointed.
Thestooges From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4397 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, joined Jun 2009, 614 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4072 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, 285 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3836 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!
AirNZ From United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), joined Feb 2005, 3077 posts, RR: 14 Reply 21, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3768 times:
Quoting TimRees (Reply 20): The north terminal is very good but I hate the south terminal.
Well, first time I've heard anyone claim such a big difference between the two
Quoting TimRees (Reply 20): It just caters for a different client group
Absolute and utter nonsense! It does nothing of the sort.
OA260 From Turkey, joined Nov 2006, 16849 posts, RR: 53 Reply 23, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2958 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.
787KQ From United States, joined Mar 2006, 511 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2708 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.
OP3000 From United States, joined Jun 2009, 614 posts, RR: 2 Reply 26, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2434 times:
Quoting 787KQ (Reply 24): 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.
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 operators will probably focus on it, as the infrastructure and the express rail link to downtown London IMO makes it a better option for growth than LTN or STN. It'll also depend on how well the airport powers-to-be strategically manage.
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 25869 posts, RR: 77 Reply 28, posted (4 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2385 times:
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 27): 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.
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 more Heathrow slots.
Davehammer From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 449 posts, RR: 0 Reply 31, posted (4 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1890 times:
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 28): JFK can't support Gatwick, either. BA is ending the route in October due to a very poor performance.
It didn't perform poorly in Y or Y+ at all, it was just the premium cabins that were going half empty. I think it would have been the perfect route for a 3 class 772 personally, but I guess the aircraft just wasn't available.
HeeBeeGB From Finland, joined Sep 2007, 215 posts, RR: 0 Reply 32, posted (4 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1732 times:
Quoting Davehammer (Reply 31): It didn't perform poorly in Y or Y+ at all, it was just the premium cabins that were going half empty. I think it would have been the perfect route for a 3 class 772 personally, but I guess the aircraft just wasn't available.
The idea that it performed well in M and badly in W/J/F is a myth, actually it performed badly in M/W/J/F.
The 4-class 777 is configured 14/48/40/124 and the 3-class 777 is configured 0/40/24/216
F and J were always as good as empty and W pretty empty too, M was normally oversold by between 20 and 40 (which were then accommodated as free upgrades into W and J.
Now, a 777 that holds 124 in M and is oversold, even by 40, is still only carrying 164 down the back (in theory), if a 3-class 777 operated the route then it would be leaving daily with 52 empty M seats and yes fewer W and J seats to fill, but even then J would be wide open.
Also many of the M seats sold are at the lowest M fare too.
Cubsrule From United States, joined May 2004, 13555 posts, RR: 14 Reply 33, posted (4 months 3 weeks ago) and read 1230 times:
Quoting HeeBeeGB (Reply 32): Now, a 777 that holds 124 in M and is oversold, even by 40, is still only carrying 164 down the back (in theory), if a 3-class 777 operated the route then it would be leaving daily with 52 empty M seats and yes fewer W and J seats to fill, but even then J would be wide open.
It almost sounds like the 763 would have been the right plane. If AA/BA get ATI on JFK-LON, a 75A might also work.
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 25869 posts, RR: 77 Reply 34, posted (4 months 3 weeks ago) and read 1230 times:
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 33): If AA/BA get ATI on JFK-LON, a 75A might also work
There is no point in the high-fixed operating costs of flying one daily 75L to Gatwick. So unless AA can do it at close to zero fixed costs, it won't work, IMO. And even with ATI, I still believe AA will have to incur employee and maintenance costs at Gatwick that are simply not neccessary.
Cubsrule From United States, joined May 2004, 13555 posts, RR: 14 Reply 35, posted (4 months 3 weeks ago) and read 1147 times:
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 34): So unless AA can do it at close to zero fixed costs, it won't work, IMO. And even with ATI, I still believe AA will have to incur employee and maintenance costs at Gatwick that are simply not neccessary.
Is there a reason that BA couldn't do all the handling and m/x?
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 25869 posts, RR: 77 Reply 36, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1104 times:
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 35): Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 34):
So unless AA can do it at close to zero fixed costs, it won't work, IMO. And even with ATI, I still believe AA will have to incur employee and maintenance costs at Gatwick that are simply not neccessary.
Is there a reason that BA couldn't do all the handling and m/x?
I have no idea. Not sure how it would work, but I would think that there would be some sort of fixed costs involved for AA, they'll just be lower with ATI.
Cubsrule From United States, joined May 2004, 13555 posts, RR: 14 Reply 37, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1053 times:
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 36): but I would think that there would be some sort of fixed costs involved for AA, they'll just be lower with ATI.
Some sort? Sure, but they'll be pretty minimal. A lot of fixed costs accrue with service to a new country and/or a new city. LGW is in neither a new country nor a new city, so at airport costs will be about all AA might have. The more BA does, the lower those will be.
BALHRWWCC From United Kingdom (England), joined Dec 2007, 667 posts, RR: 1 Reply 38, posted (4 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 731 times:
Quoting HeeBeeGB (Reply 32): he idea that it performed well in M and badly in W/J/F is a myth, actually it performed badly in M/W/J/F.
The 4-class 777 is configured 14/48/40/124 and the 3-class 777 is configured 0/40/24/216
F and J were always as good as empty and W pretty empty too, M was normally oversold by between 20 and 40 (which were then accommodated as free upgrades into W and J.
Now, a 777 that holds 124 in M and is oversold, even by 40, is still only carrying 164 down the back (in theory), if a 3-class 777 operated the route then it would be leaving daily with 52 empty M seats and yes fewer W and J seats to fill, but even then J would be wide open.
Also many of the M seats sold are at the lowest M fare too.
Recently went to PHL operating the 777. Our outbound configuration was
14F/48J/40W/124M we were booked 3F/42J/30W/164Y. On the return the aircraft was configured 17F/48J/24W/127Y. We were booked 19F/56J/21W/121Y. We ended up downgrading 2 F pax to J. 4 J pax opted for the last 4 J seats on the later 767. Not a upgrade in site. Infact I have operted the 777 once and the 767 4 times to PHL in last 4 months. All 4 767 flights FULL in J, FULL in W and between 100 and 120 down the back. My experience of PHL has been that it has been making money.
Quoting HeeBeeGB (Reply 32): the 3-class 777 is configured 0/40/24/216
We very rarely send a 3 class to PHL as there is a F market from that station. The 3 class configuration you have listed is the LGW based aircraft only. The LHR aircraft are all in the process of being changed from their current 36J/24W/212Y to a new 48J/24W/203Y configuration.
Quoting Gilesdavies (Thread starter): Many would argue the Heathrow to Philadelphia is extremely poorly timed, with it departing at 1.05pm.
I wouldn't call that poorly timed for a daily flight. I think current PHL/LHR sector is much more poorly timed with a flight departing PHL at 22:40. The Winter timetable time of 21:!5 is better but still not great.
Luckyone From United States, joined Aug 2008, 412 posts, RR: 0 Reply 39, posted (4 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 704 times:
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 27): 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.
How many long haul airports are south of I-10? Three, maybe four, and I'm guessing they're all in Florida. For that matter ATL itself isn't that far from I-10. Could you clarify your choice? Or am I just dense ?
Panamair From United States, joined Oct 2001, 3595 posts, RR: 27 Reply 41, posted (4 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 662 times:
Quoting BALHRWWCC (Reply 38): All 4 767 flights FULL in J, FULL in W and between 100 and 120 down the back. My experience of PHL has been that it has been making money.
With all due respect, I am not sure you can say that...remember that BA (and subsequently the other carriers) has already had about 2-3 sales this year for the premium cabins (last one just ended June 30). Fares dipped as low as GBP1,100 for a Club World return LHR-NYC-LHR (in the good ol' days, those fares were around 2-3x that), and PHL was not far behind; on top of that, they were offering GBP499 to upgrade to the F cabin. And these fares were available for a wide range of dates throughout 2009, with rather liberal min/max stay requirements.
Hence, a lot of those full cabins were driven by rather drastic sales (and this is not confined just to BA)
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2257 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 1756 posts, 
From United States, joined Nov 2008, 362 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 87 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 25869 posts, 
From Puerto Rico, joined Dec 2000, 5279 posts, 
From Turkey, joined Nov 2006, 16849 posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), joined Feb 2005, 3077 posts, 
From Finland, joined Sep 2007, 215 posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Dec 2007, 667 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
