Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Does MX Operate Into South Terminal At LGW?  
User currently offline8herveg From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 1127 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 6 months 17 hours ago) and read 4151 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?

Any thoughts appreciated.

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineNetjetsINTL From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 6 months 12 hours ago) and read 4032 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)


User currently offlineHeeBeeGB From Finland, joined Sep 2007, 424 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 10 hours ago) and read 3979 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.

[Edited 2009-10-27 14:40:11]

User currently offlineNetjetsINTL From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 9 hours ago) and read 3927 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??

http://www.traveldailynews.com/pages...ok-for-London-and-Manchester-taxis


User currently offlineGhost77 From Mexico, joined Mar 2000, 5199 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 6 hours ago) and read 3801 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!
User currently offlineNAVEGA From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 741 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3604 times:



Quoting 8herveg (Thread starter):

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...


User currently offlineRutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 2840 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (4 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3561 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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)

The only area that BA can help is India


User currently offlineNetjetsINTL From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 5 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3481 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


User currently offlineDavehammer From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 472 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 5 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3416 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.


User currently offlineWolflair From Mexico, joined Sep 2007, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 5 months 4 weeks ago) and read 3263 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
User currently offlineBCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 17
Reply 10, posted (4 years 5 months 4 weeks ago) and read 3253 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."
User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8094 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3136 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



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.


User currently offlineAirNz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3114 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?


User currently offlineDavehammer From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 472 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3095 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.


User currently offlineNetjetsINTL From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3095 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...


User currently offlineRutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 2840 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3072 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


User currently offlineEljonno From Australia, joined Sep 2008, 161 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3048 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

[Edited 2009-10-30 16:54:16 by eljonno]

[Edited 2009-10-30 16:54:48 by eljonno]

[Edited 2009-10-30 16:55:30 by eljonno]

User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26196 posts, RR: 76
Reply 17, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2973 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
User currently offlineFlyingfox27 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 423 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2939 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.


User currently offlineEljonno From Australia, joined Sep 2008, 161 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2849 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.

[Edited 2009-10-31 08:33:09 by eljonno]

User currently offlineGhost77 From Mexico, joined Mar 2000, 5199 posts, RR: 51
Reply 20, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2740 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!
User currently offlineBCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 17
Reply 21, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2579 times:



Quoting Ghost77 (Reply 20):
MX-UK bilateral allows on MEX-LON 7X frequencies from each side with unlimited capacity since 1995

Thanks for the correction. So why is it that BA wanted to go daily in 2005 but could not? Lack of slots at LHR perhaps?



MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
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...
Why Does Fedex Fly Into DFW posted Mon Mar 15 2004 07:07:33 by Ramprat74
AA Moving To North Terminal At LGW? posted Mon Mar 8 2004 00:03:15 by Ssides
Why Does The 744 Wing Curve Down At The Ends? posted Thu Jun 12 2003 06:08:53 by Ual747
Why Does LH Operate 737's? posted Tue May 20 2003 01:53:40 by ContinentalEWR
Why Does UPS Operate Both 767 & A300? posted Mon Jan 7 2002 08:56:43 by FedExIndy
Why Does NorthWorst Need A 99-gate Terminal? posted Fri Jun 11 1999 16:48:31 by NYC Int'l
CO Entry Into Star - Terminal Moves At EWR? posted Tue Oct 20 2009 08:34:40 by Mozart
Why Does LTU/Air Berlin Still Operate YUM-DUS posted Sat Sep 27 2008 19:22:42 by Bbinn333
U2 At LGW Summer 09 One Terminal? posted Wed Sep 24 2008 09:19:55 by Richardw
Why Does Air Pullmantour Fly Into VCE? posted Thu Mar 27 2008 14:16:44 by ENCRJ
Why Does LTU/Air Berlin Still Operate YUM-DUS posted Sat Sep 27 2008 19:22:42 by Bbinn333
U2 At LGW Summer 09 One Terminal? posted Wed Sep 24 2008 09:19:55 by Richardw