STNfan From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2009, 1 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 years 8 months 4 weeks ago) and read 13569 times:
I'm new to this kind of thing so please excuse me, but has anybody but me noticed the amount of airlines leaving Stansted for other London Airport?
To my knowledge i believe SkyEurope, Wizz, EL AL, Air Moldova, Norwegian, Transavia and now Aegean who are going to LHR from 25OCT have left or are leaving this great airport.
Does anynone have any idea why?
Pe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19366 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 13382 times:
Quoting Someone83 (Reply 2): Gatwick better suited their needs and is closer to central London
I should think it was because they could generate higher yields at LGW.
Regarding Wizz, didn't they just operate KTW-STN-KTW? This seemed to just be a way to cement its position on KTW-LON-KTW and to hopefully stop Ryanair entering. If memory serves, when Wizz left Ryanair entered.
"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
SyeaphanR From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 72 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 13196 times:
Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 3): If memory serves, when Wizz left Ryanair entered.
The other way round....I was actually booked with Wizz, and summarily dumped to Luton flights! Most frustrating! FR moved from KRK to KTW, then subsequently back to KRK, but keeping a presence at KTW; a foot in Wizz's door.
SkyEurope pulled out of their KRK base, pulling the STN route. Another of their scatterdash decisions.
STN is becoming a little bit of a ghetto....Sad, it's so convenient from Lincolnshire, and a nicer airport than LTN. Far nicer!
Jamesontheroad From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 561 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 13051 times:
Quoting SyeaphanR (Reply 4): STN is becoming a little bit of a ghetto....Sad, it's so convenient from Lincolnshire, and a nicer airport than LTN. Far nicer!
Ghetto-ised by BAA, I would suggest. Remember it opening, going there late one night to pick up a family member of an AirUK flight from Paris (?) ... completely deserted, landside -> airside views possible due to much thinner security and no supersized shopping mall immediately after security.
It's also going to get more convenient from the Midlands and North as (IIRC) CrossCountry Trains are looking to extend their hourly Birmingham / Leicester trains as far as Stansted, meaning that combined with the current hourly Birmingham / Stansted route there will be half hourly train service from Birmingham through Leicester, Peterborough, Ely and Cambridge to the airport. The stub platform they use could also be extended, or trains fitted with partial door control for 3 car trains.
Quite possibly... I've flown STN-CDG on KLMuk who bought out Air UK, then on Buzz. KLMuk (then just plain KLM) inherited many routes from Air UK.
Perhaps another reason why airlines are leaving STN is that it is so full of FR and U2 flights, they are being squeezed out... And full service carriers may not want to be seen to be using an LCC airport.
Heathrow From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 980 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 12644 times:
Well, from a passenger point of view, STN is out of the way. Stansted express doesn't connect to much. LCY is gret from short flight for people trying to get in to central London, and LHR is great for legacy and connections. After that, LGW is really the convenient choice. STN has never really boomed in my opinion. I flew QN from YYZ to STN in the 90's, and it was pretty dead.
Bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3902 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 12628 times:
For the past few years, if an airline wanted a pair of slots to fly in and out of London, their choice was really only STN. The few slots available at LHR & LGW were either very early or very late. Plus you probably couldn't get a pair allowing you to fly in, and out in the 1 - 2 hours that airlines mostly want.
Now however with the downturn, a few slots are available, particularly at LGW. Thus it makes sense to move, before they are taken up.
RussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7764 posts, RR: 21
Reply 13, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 12366 times:
Quoting Heathrow (Reply 9): Well, from a passenger point of view, STN is out of the way
*SIGH*. Must we go through this nonsense again? Compare the distances of LTN, STN and LGW to central London. There's not much in it. Compare it to the distance of other airports from the major cities they serve - it's much closer than many. Enough already.
You're right of course - over 20 million pax per year in one terminal is sod all really.
Quoting Heathrow (Reply 9): I flew QN from YYZ to STN in the 90's, and it was pretty dead.
Er, newsflash - it's 2009 pal. I'll tell you what - you fly out first thing in the morning from STN, or fly in late morning. teatime or late at night. You'll see what the word 'busy' really means. Stop spouting nonsense from decades ago and look at the real situation.
[Edited 2009-08-30 13:56:11]
✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 14031 posts, RR: 100
Reply 16, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 12109 times:
Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 3): I should think it was because they could generate higher yields at LGW.
I think that is their 'needs.'
Quoting Signol (Reply 6): Perhaps another reason why airlines are leaving STN is that it is so full of FR and U2 flights, they are being squeezed out... And full service carriers may not want to be seen to be using an LCC airport.
I wonder if the negotiating power of FR and U2 leaves other airlines paying too steep of fees for the same service (from the airport) and thus unable to compete? When an airport goes to a per passenger/parking fee model, in effect smaller aircraft movements become subsidized by larger aircraft. I have no problem with an airport pursuing that model of revenue, but it cuts into some of the natural cost savings of operating a widebody. Yes, per passenger the counter costs the same per bag, but a widebody is cheaper to load per bag on the other end...
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 10): Now however with the downturn, a few slots are available, particularly at LGW. Thus it makes sense to move, before they are taken up.
This is probably the #1 reason. Excluding FR and U2 who can negotiate down fees, other airlines need to go with the RASM is highest. Thus, LGW or (if available) LHR. Although I'm surprised U2 hasn't taken up the slack at LGW...
Note: A little reduction in STN's growth isn't the same as deserting the airport. If other airlines cannot compete with FR or U2 at STN, its time to cut the losses and move on.
Bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3902 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 11873 times:
Why does this myth persist that STN consists of nothing but a runway in the middle of nowhere with an empty nissen hut for a terminal ?
Until the opening of LHR T5, STN was without doubt the most modern terminal in the South of England, possibly in the UK. It is certainly the busiest terminal, as the UK's larger airports have multiple terminals.
It has good transport links straight off the M11, plus the Stansted express.
The one thing that LHR & LGW have that STN does not, is good long haul connection possibilities, this ought to be the reason for airlines moving, as they shouldn't be thinking that they will save money by moving, or be able to offer their passengers a better terminal experience.
Darr34 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2009, 65 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 11194 times:
I maybe in the minority but I think design wise STN is the nicest London airport (well LHR T5 as well) typical of Norman Foster. Anyway architecture aside, for me and many like me it´s the nearest airport and the most convenient so it's not all about LHR and LGW although I agree that they seem to carry more prestige. Saying that, most people I know, even in West London, would still fly from STN if it meant getting one of FR´s bargains
Will be interesting to see if FR stop expanding there, hasn´t the amount of aircraft stayed at 40 during the summer for the last couple of years? And the winter cut to 24 is only a couple less than last winter.....
Ba97 From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10776 times:
As an international (i.e. overseas) business traveling person, LHR obviously wins on all accounts with Gatwick second. Leaving the east half of London STN is not bad. The problem is not STN. It is where you fly to from there or where you fly from to get there. Other than vacations, business links from there are not prime locations and of course eliminate connections from international long haul. Yes you save a penny or two flying into second tier cities or airports but with business, doing that, then renting cars or other links defeats it. I wish it did become more connected to prime locations as I would find it useful. If they are jacking up fees at the airport, that certainly can be a kiss of death.
there is economy class, business class, first class...then Concorde..pure class
Gilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3102 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10499 times:
No one has mentioned Air Berlin...
They use to be the second biggest user at STN and was a hub for them, offering no end of flights to Germany, Majorca and UK airports like BHD, MAN, GLA and EDI. Now a days they are down to about nine flights a day!
On PPRUNE website about 2 weeks ago, there was speculation that Air Berlin were in negotiation with LTN and on about moving operations to there. Don't know how true or advanced this has progressed.
You also have Blue Air which maybe a small player at STN with only about 10 flights a week, but they started in July flights from LTN to Bacau in Romania... They could be testing the water and if LTN works as a success they could looking move other operations there, but that would take them into direct competition with Wizz Air on many routes and something they may want to avoid!
A few years back LTN only seemed to secure airlines that could base aircraft at the airport... But as overnight parking on the apron at LTN is more-or-less full, they are now keen to secure airlines that operate from other bases amd maxmise usage once the based aircraft have departed on their routes in the morning. Hence why airlines like SkyEurope, Wizzair and EL AL have been able to come to the airport. Wizzair for example operate about 140 flights a week from LTN.
Its not all a bed of roses at LTN, they have seen a decline in passenger numbers by about 10-15% this year so far. FlyBE for example are dropping their Jersey service and WindJet who only started services in June are moving to LGW for their Winter timetable. On the surface it looks like the airport has lots of new routes starting, but this usually comes at the expense of other routes or reduction in frequency to existing routes by the likes of easyJet and Ryanair. Also easyJet are threatening to reduce services at LTN if they are unable to negotiate the landing fees they want for next year.
: As an American, STN was the first airport I ever flew out of on an Intra-Europe flight. It was 1995 and I flew Ryanair to Dublin and back. I remember
: STN in 1995 bears no relation to STN in 2009, 1995 was around the time that the expansion really got going, in the space of 10 years it was adding ov
: Typical long term planning by the UK government. STN is the only London area airport that can comfortably grow to 5 and 6 runways because the land is
: Badly worded question: of course EZY DID maintain STN, hence its continued operations there with around 22 routes (mainly ex-GO). But I have no idea
: Turkish will be opening up a route from Stansted to Istanbul's secondary airport Sabiha Gokcen
: Sad to hear about Stansted. I find it the most convenient London-airport, especially because has the least of the damned hassle to go through ”secur
: I think others have made the point that STN isn't known as a hub airport - it is primarily an origin or a destination. Sorry but I really don't think
: I never found Stansted to be deserted or quiet. But I can understand that airlines who were seaking LGW or LHR slots since years take them when they c
: I love STN, it's so convenient (A1/M11 and you're there in 2 hours from the north), and there's the train station inside the terminal. It could benefi
: Do they still serve Trondheim from STN. I know it never moved to LGW when all the other routes did Blueair are starting STN-Thessalonki this winter,
: Mind you, if there were fewer I'd almost be tempted to fly from there more often - I first flew from STN in 2000 (with the airline which apparently m
: No doubt about it. At certain times of the day it is way too congested.
: I remember the days when it had just moved over from the other side of the airport, It was the quietest place ever then almost deserted a lot of the t
: I always have problems in LTN with their ridiculous long crowd in front of the passport control at about 7:30 in the morning where the moving crowd st
: In my experience the M11 has far less congestion than the motorways to Londons other airports, I can't recall being stuck in traffic on the M11, unli
: Is STN land area large enough that in future all of London's airports could be consolidated there? I'm trying to imagine the movements at ATL being re
: Having taken around 2½-hours to get from STN to the M25 on more than one occasion, I can assure you that the M11 is possibly the worst Motorway in B
: Returning to the original question, a series of recent hikes in fees is the most likely reason behind the current exodus of airlines. I've never seen
: Every time I've used STN for early morning FR and U2 flights, it's been extremely busy, so losing a few flights hardly suggests it's about to become t
: Completely depends on where you're going. For me, it's as convenient and quick as from LGW.
: LGW is on a very busy line, with trains all over SE England as well as very frequent services to London Victoria, and through the Thamelink tunel acr
: I guess it is a bit of a catch 22 situation: Ryanair and to a lesser extent Easyjet/Go have really put STN on the map, but are also responsible for th
: Whilst i wouldn't doubt you taking 2 1/2 hours to reach the M25 from STN, this is hardly typical is it ? I would normally reckon on it taking literal
: I am well aware of all that. Obviously it depends on where you need to go or are coming from. I next fly from/to LCY. I am fortunate in that it's abo
: STN is fine, although I agree, it depends when you go, certain times of the day can be busy (like all airports I suppose) I frequently use FR on my Du
: Having driven from STN to the M25 at least a hundred times (no exaggeration), I can with confidence say that that statement is utterly untrue. By con
: It makes absolutely no difference whether a place is "obscure" - and that is very subjective - so long as people that need to know about it know abou
: Indeed you are right. Basically it comes down to the fact that even though people moan about flights to plaes they themselves don't know, the airport
: Absolutely. Only need to look at stats for that. Shouldn't even be in question. I have arrived into STN many times around 2300. As I waited for im