8herveg From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 1118 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3162 times:
Anyone know why Mexicana operate into the South Terminal at London Gatwick and not the North, where it would be easier for people to connect onto British Airways flights?
I realise the service started before Mexicana was officially part of Oneworld, and I don't think they are even official members until the beginning of November, but surely it must make sense to fly from the North Terminal so that once they ARE in the alliance, there could be a possibility that BA codeshare on the route?
NetjetsINTL From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 593 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3043 times:
Quoting 8herveg (Thread starter): Anyone know why Mexicana operate into the South Terminal at London Gatwick and not the North, where it would be easier for people to connect onto British Airways flights?
Sorry I don't have an answer to your question, but now that we're on the subject, why is it that Mexicana flies to Gatwick and not LHR to begin with??? I wonder if BA will give them a hand in obtaining some LHR slots (if that's the reason they're not flying there)
HeeBeeGB From Finland, joined Sep 2007, 424 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2990 times:
Although MX aren't currently in Oneworld, at the moment the number of connections from MX to BA at LGW is next to zero. If they do connect they connect to/from BA's own LHR-MEX. Even the number lf MEX-LHR with onward LGW connections is tiny, not helped by LGW's lack of routes and frequency.
Also, although soon to be an alliance partner I think BA would rather not give MX LHR slots in order to compete head to head with BA's own LHR-MEX.
MX's local advertising promotes LGW-MEX-XXX promoting the beach destinations as well as MEX so I think that is their main focus.
NetjetsINTL From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 593 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2938 times:
Quoting HeeBeeGB (Reply 2): Also, although soon to be an alliance partner I think BA would rather not give MX LHR slots in order to compete head to head with BA's own LHR-MEX.
that makes sense and I think its fair.... but still I wish Mexicana could ge their hands on a few LHR slots
Quoting HeeBeeGB (Reply 2): MX's local advertising promotes LGW-MEX-XXX promoting the beach destinations as well as MEX so I think that is their main focus
haha, are you talking about the taxi cabs roaming around London with the Cancun logo??
Ghost77 From Mexico, joined Mar 2000, 5130 posts, RR: 53 Reply 4, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2812 times:
Quoting NetjetsINTL (Reply 1): Sorry I don't have an answer to your question, but now that we're on the subject, why is it that Mexicana flies to Gatwick and not LHR to begin with???
Costs. It's cheaper to fly to LGW than LHR.
And as for this other issue, maybe it's also cheaper to arrive on S terminal rather than N. Maybe, as soon as MX enters 1W they'll move to the N terminal.
g77
Ricardo Morales - flyAPM - ¡No es que maneje rapido, solo estoy volando lento!
NAVEGA From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 741 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2615 times:
Simply because they were unable to get slots at LHR. Once they are officially in One World,
this should change. The connecting traffic at LHR is should be greater for them there...
Rutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 2033 posts, RR: 5 Reply 6, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2572 times:
Love this talk of connections and the value of Heathrow to every airline.
In the case of Mexicana its taken them 30 years to start the UK operations.
They have been designated the official Mexican carrier under the bi-latteral for just about ever!
As for connection as others have said its their own domestic network that feeds Mexico City thats more important.
Asia/Australia connections are BETTER made via Los Angeles (CX/QFA/AA/JL) and Europe (IB) Middle East (RJ) via Madrid (They use the A330 with greater up lift and freight)
NetjetsINTL From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 593 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2492 times:
Quoting Rutankrd (Reply 6): Love this talk of connections and the value of Heathrow to every airline.
Well the value is LHR is great to every airline, upthere with NRT I guess... Much easier to get slots at the other big important airports like LAX, JFK, FRA and CDG than it is getting access to LHR
Davehammer From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 472 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2427 times:
Quoting NetjetsINTL (Reply 7): Well the value is LHR is great to every airline, upthere with NRT I guess... Much easier to get slots at the other big important airports like LAX, JFK, FRA and CDG than it is getting access to LHR
Getting slots at LGW isn't too easy either. U2 will take pretty much anything that's going and there's not much spare even in this economy.
As far as why Mexicana operate from South - Good question.
Many of the domestics and LCCs prefer South because it's generally a shorter taxi to the runway which helps with time keeping. But I cant see MX being too bothered with this! It's an odd one, I'd hope when they're in OW that they'll move up to North.
Wolflair From Mexico, joined Sep 2007, 168 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2274 times:
Quoting HeeBeeGB (Reply 2): Also, although soon to be an alliance partner I think BA would rather not give MX LHR slots in order to compete head to head with BA's own LHR-MEX.
I wouldn't be sure. AFAIK, one of the reasons BA does notfly daily to MEX is due to lower yields in the traffic, which makes other routes more profitable. Still the demand of low-yielding traffic is there. MX jumped in to increase their profile and grab a piece of the market. There wouldn't be lots of concerns within BA due to "competition" with MX.
As to the reasons to fly to LGW-South... LGW makes more sense financially: cheaper slots and airport fees at a time of downturn where the airline is making a bold decision (i.e. open a new route, to a market they've never flown before). LHR make have been more risky.
Regarding the south terminal.... that is a very good question. I imagine that is because the airport fees might have been cheaper, or because the south terminal had gates available at the time they were targeting for their flights.
JMM -A319,A320,A321,A333,A343,AT45,AT72,B462,B722,B737s from -200 to -800,B744,B752,B762,B763,BE35,DC91,F70,Ju52,MD80,S3
BCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 18 Reply 10, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2264 times:
Quoting Wolflair (Reply 9): one of the reasons BA does notfly daily to MEX is due to lower yields in the traffic,
LHR-MEX is a high yielding route for BA. The only reason why they do not fly daily is because they cannot get permission under the current UK/Mexico air traffic agreement. All that might change now that MX is operating to LGW.
Quoting Wolflair (Reply 9): As to the reasons to fly to LGW-South... LGW makes more sense financially
As previously mentioned, lack of suitable slot availability at LHR is the reason why MX flies to LGW.
MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
Jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7407 posts, RR: 7 Reply 11, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2147 times:
Quoting Rutankrd (Reply 6): In the case of Mexicana its taken them 30 years to start the UK operations.
They have been designated the official Mexican carrier under the bi-latteral for just about ever!
AeroMexico also started flights to London, to LGW, at around teh same time with 767's MX did.
AirNz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2125 times:
Quoting 8herveg (Thread starter): Anyone know why Mexicana operate into the South Terminal at London Gatwick and not the North, where it would be easier for people to connect onto British Airways flights?
Sorry, but I have to ask......where does this myth originate from that passengers flying into London always have to connect to somewhere else? Why necessarily would they? There is also no necessity to transfer to a British Airways flight. Indeed, if travelling onward within the UK BA certainly wouldn't be either an automatic, or good, choice! However, all that nothwithstanding, a child could transfer between North and South terminals at LGW, so I fail to see what's 'difficult' about it.
Quoting NAVEGA (Reply 5): Simply because they were unable to get slots at LHR. Once they are officially in One World,
this should change. The connecting traffic at LHR is should be greater for them there...
Why would it be easier? Any alliance has no bearing whatsoever to how slots at LHR are distributed. Why do they need connecting traffic, and to where specifically?
Davehammer From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 472 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2106 times:
Quoting AirNz (Reply 12): Sorry, but I have to ask......where does this myth originate from that passengers flying into London always have to connect to somewhere else?
I don't know - just another Anet myth. It's my job to analyse passenger trends, O&D connecting and so on and in the case of London, many people are simply headed to London. Yet on here there's this constant myth that connecting traffic is pretty much all that flights are about. Yes connections help but it really isn't the be all and end all that some make it out to be.
NetjetsINTL From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 593 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2106 times:
Quoting AirNz (Reply 12): Why would it be easier? Any alliance has no bearing whatsoever to how slots at LHR are distributed. Why do they need connecting traffic, and to where specifically?
I agree that being a Oneworld alliance member has no bearing and shouldn't have any bearing on how slots are allocated.... However I do expect Mexicana to ask BA for some assistance on getting a couple of LHR slots. Whether BA can help is another story..... I sincerely doubt Mexicana will not try to get into LHR at some point in the future...
Rutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 2033 posts, RR: 5 Reply 15, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2083 times:
JFK777 Aeromexico have NOT commenced services into the UK at all.
They did apply for slots however their major European entry point remains Paris as has been the case since the 1970s.
Once again for those in the US the ONLY airlines that HAVE paid over the odds for peak morning slot access into LHR ARE from your Country.
After 12 noon there ARE a few slots available for new entrants FACT such as Oman/Arik and even the Indian carriers JET and Kingfisher.
LHR is slot restrained but not full and its certainly not like Naritta.
In fact with JAL down to one daily from December they could sub lease the slot pair to Mexicana quite easily These slots are 1325z inbound and 1535z outbound with a bit of adjustment.
As AirNZ infers London is a VERY significant market in its own right and the importance of connecting traffic is only really relevant to BA.
Fact is *A and Skyteam see London ops as Focus and O&D in the main.
Yes BD does some local (UK and Eire) feed into the UA/ANZ/AC, the main European feed remains through FRA/MUC and even ZRH.
Eljonno From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2008, 148 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2059 times:
Quoting AirNz (Reply 12): a child could transfer between North and South terminals at LGW, so I fail to see what's 'difficult' about it.
Not according to the email I got from Flybe the other day: trying to poach passengers from Air Southwest on the NQY-LON service; they're quite sure it's more convenient to arrive at the South terminal (now that the terminal transit system is out of use and has been replaced by buses)
(I can't imagine the bus is anymore complicated than the transit.)
It is more of a time-convenience issue when arriving at the North terminal though, for passengers travelling to central London - because the mainline train station is at the South terminal. So assuming that a large percentage of MX passengers will not be wishing to stay in the Crawley/Gatwick area (or connect to a North terminal flight) - the South terminal is more convenient in most respects. Not that I am speculating on this as the reason that they do
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25869 posts, RR: 79 Reply 17, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1984 times:
Quoting NetjetsINTL (Reply 7): Much easier to get slots at the other big important airports like LAX, JFK, FRA and CDG
Given that half those airports aren't slot controlled, I think it is pretty easy.
Quoting Eljonno (Reply 16): It is more of a time-convenience issue when arriving at the North terminal though, for passengers travelling to central London - because the mainline train station is at the South terminal. So assuming that a large percentage of MX passengers will not be wishing to stay in the Crawley/Gatwick area (or connect to a North terminal flight) - the South terminal is more convenient in most respects. Not that I am speculating on this as the reason that they do
I really doubt that is much of an issue. It isn't like it takes an hour to get between terminals.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Flyingfox27 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 406 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks ago) and read 1950 times:
I just think its nice of them to be at Gatwick and still afloat after this Swine Flu business, i did worry about them stopping because of that but they seemed to have pulled through which is good.
I wish Oman Air was still at LGW as it had a morning slot where we could catch it, staying at LHR after 6pm is not very good for me as it takes a 3 hour train trip home, so for a plane spotters view its not always good they move north to LHR.
Its nice to have variety at LGW and only an hours train trip away, rather than a constant sea of orange airbuses.
Eljonno From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2008, 148 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1860 times:
Quoting Flyingfox27 (Reply 18): I just think its nice of them to be at Gatwick
Quoting Flyingfox27 (Reply 18): rather than a constant sea of orange airbuses.
Definitely agree with you there.
Quoting N1120A (Reply 17): I really doubt that is much of an issue. It isn't like it takes an hour to get between terminals.
I would probably agree with you on this, but for passengers arriving at the North terminal who are only due to be in London for the day, it might become more of an issue I suppose - not that this is the case with MX pax presumably.
Ghost77 From Mexico, joined Mar 2000, 5130 posts, RR: 53 Reply 20, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1751 times:
Quoting BCAL (Reply 10): LHR-MEX is a high yielding route for BA. The only reason why they do not fly daily is because they cannot get permission under the current UK/Mexico air traffic agreement. All that might change now that MX is operating to LGW.
Negative, MX-UK bilateral allows on MEX-LON 7X frequencies from each side with unlimited capacity since 1995.
g77
Ricardo Morales - flyAPM - ¡No es que maneje rapido, solo estoy volando lento!
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 1118 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 593 posts, 
From Finland, joined Sep 2007, 424 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Mar 2000, 5130 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
