RyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 4504 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2261 times:
It's been speculated on here before, and at some point I think there may even have been a press release from MAGplc to that effect, but I haven't heard anything subsequently and the only notable (fairly) recent change was EK going from T2 to T1.
The reason for T1 becoming the scheduled terminal is that over the last couple of years they've ploughed a massive amount of money into refurbishing it. While I've heard mixed reports about how worthwhile the exercise was, MAG seem to think they've created something special and therefore want to concentrate the premium traffic there.
T3 has very few retail outlets and is overall fairly basic: it's functional but not much more, which is strange since it was specifically built for BA. However with them long since gone I guess it just made sense to move over the LCCs who don't necessarily want what O'Leary would call a "golden Taj Mahal". It's primary uses at present are BE and EZY, with LS and FR still using T1.
And that sort of left T2 for who was left, ie the charters. Personally T2 is far and away my favourite terminal, although I have been through T1 in a while, and given that was always MAN's flagship terminal it does seem bizarre that it is been stripped of all scheduled flights. At the moment pretty much all the long-haul uses T2: VS, US, CO, DL, QR, SQ, PK, AA(?) with just EK and EY at T1, plus AF/KL use T2 as well.
As to when this is going to happen ... who knows? It's been all quiet for about 12 months now.
Take Monarch, a charter airline that offers scheduled services.
Where does Aer Lingus go - scheduled, but low cost
Where does FlyBe go - Domestic, or scheduled?
Where does Bmi group go - they offer scheduled, charter, domestic and low cost - split?
I think most people still identify the majority of European airlines by these terms. So to answer your questions: -
Monarch - would be in T2 as they are still a big charter player even though they offer scheduled flights too (a bit like Thomson, who would remain in T2).
Aer Lingus would be in T1. The fact rumours suggest they want to join an alliance (again) means they are a low cost legacy rather than an airline founded purposefully as an LCC.
Flybe would be in T3 for their domestic traffic plus the fact that they do now operate as a LCC operation.
bmi would be in T3 as the LHR flights (mainline) and regional flights (bmi regional) are domestic, whilst bmi baby is LCC. Any charter traffic is small and making use of spare aircraft capacity rather than a core part of the business.
Personally I always liked T2, and although it's a few years since I used it the last time I did I was struck by how it was less roomy than when built - it had been struck by BAA disease airside. I.e. lets gets lots of retail outlets in here. Were there ever plans to extend T2? It looks like the end furthest from T1/T3 is just cut off and could have been built out (a bit like the truncated T8 at JFK).
spud757 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1922 times:
Could T1 handle all scheduled traffic if it were to move there?
Thinking about long and short haul legacy/scheduled ops if all located at T1 would be SQ, QR, EY, EK, VS, CO, US, CO, DL, AA, LH, LX, SN, AY, EI, AF, KL, SV, TK, SK..... seems like a lot of movements for T1. Could it handle it even if LS/TC/MON ops moved out to T2/T3 for charter or LCC?
excluded BA/BD due to primary domestic ops suggested at T3 but considering T1/T3 are physically connected (airside) at least this I guess makes it easier an airline to work across both terminals and for passengers to transfer to/from domestic-int'l.
Agree T3 would be better suited to LCC and domestic ops. Unless a bit of cash is spent on it, for most part it is more basic with less airside facilities than T1 & 2. However T3 does have a BA exec lounge to cater for BA and AA premium passengers so they're catered for in that respect.
Where would LS sit in this structure.... it's LCC but also charter. So doesn't fit in either T3 or T2 if there was to be such a move. Leave where it is.
Would it not make more sense to co-locate the various alliances - for example *A is spread over T1 (short haul) T2 (long haul) and T3 (domestic). ST are already in T2 together so sorted. OW is spread over T1 and T3.... leave as it is since transfers can connect airside easily onto other OW services or onto interline BE flights to/from T3. Perhaps moving all the *A long-haul to T1 so that would be CO, SQ, US (leaving BD in T3 for the sake of its domestic ops) also perhaps VS and QR who aren't in an alliance but would make it easier for transfer passengers to connect to BD/BE interline domestic services at T3. To make room at T1 shift TOM or MON ops to T2. Could that work?
Humberside From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 4913 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1870 times:
I think this thread shows there is no easy way to group airlines. Surely though the alliances would want to be together to share facilities and allow easier connections? I would have thought that this would dictate what would happen.
While the MAG plans sound simple in reality they either will not happen (e.g. bmi regional to Lyon would be in 'domestic' terminal T3 and not T1) or if strictly adhered too would lead to split operations that airlines would never accept