Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
LGW-NYC Link?  
User currently offlineheebeegb From Finland, joined Sep 2007, 424 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 7836 times:

Hi all,

Reading the business traveller magazine article on the LGW £1bn improvements and it mentions as we know there is now no NYC link with LGW (BA 763 before 9/11, then resumed for a short time on a 4 class 772 but then dropped, DL operated a 763 a few years back upping it to double daily until both moved due to open skies)

CO of course had an LGW-EWR link before open skies, DC10s then 772, 764 etc

The article says about how the lack of US traffic caused QR to leave LGW and also head of airline busienss development at LGW quoted as saying "we've got active dialogue about transatlantic routes, its one of our key targets and we're having conversations about getting a new york here"

Who do you think would operate a NYC from LGW if anyone?

Not sure BA would try it again or VS. Maybe DL? as they have a daily ATL still at LGW,CO could restart an EWR? Not sure who else would do it. I wonder could a charter make it work? like TOM operating a 767 say a 5x weekly operation thur-mon selling packages and direct bookings?

Any thoughts?

42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline1stfl94 From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 1455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 7680 times:

Quoting heebeegb (Thread starter):
I wonder could a charter make it work? like TOM operating a 767 say a 5x weekly operation thur-mon selling packages and direct bookings?

Probably not as the tour operators would probably just buy up economy seats on scheduled flights.

LON-NYC is considered a premium market and the premium travellers are going out of LHR which has resulted in the scheduled carriers pulling out of LGW when they could. BA only really kept the last LGW-JFK route going because it keeping the slot warm for the LCY service.


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3197 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 7545 times:

Come on, if BA, DL and CO all move their services out of LGW to LHR, the route's not viable due to the proximity of the LHR-NYC market. None of the US majors or British majors will fly it so the short answer is that it won't happen with a major carrier.

Hence realistic speculation would be on someone like Sun Country adding to their weekly LGW-YQX-MSP (unlikely). The days of the likes of American Trans Air operation from secondary UK airfields to major US cities are behind us.
Gatwick can "say" what they'd like to see, it's the same as BHX, NCL et all, more long haul heavy metal. This doesn't mean that it's in any way likely.

Odd that QR can't seem to stay at LGW without US connections and yet EK manage a thrice daily service.......I suspect QR just wanted to consolidate at LHR.


User currently offlineVasu From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 3856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7442 times:

Here's a question...

If EWR can have numerous flights to London alongside JFK, why doesn't LGW have more flights to New York?

Surely LGW is to LHR what EWR is to JFK... right?


User currently offlineCODC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2391 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7393 times:

Quoting Vasu (Reply 3):
Surely LGW is to LHR what EWR is to JFK... right?

Not exactly. LGW traffic has been reduced to substantially all VFR/leisure traffic, while the business traffic has flocked to LHR since Open Skies. EWR has higher yields relative to JFK than does LGW to LHR.


User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4234 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7396 times:

Quoting Vasu (Reply 3):
Here's a question...

If EWR can have numerous flights to London alongside JFK, why doesn't LGW have more flights to New York?

Surely LGW is to LHR what EWR is to JFK... right?

That is an apples to oranges comparison. EWR and JFK are both about the same distance from Manhattan, and both are arguably just as easy to get to. By comparison, LHR is only 15 miles west of the Square Mile, where LGW is 28 miles south, and is much less convenient to get to than LHR.

If you want a better comparison, try LHR and LGW to NRT and HND, after the Japanese government lifts all the time restrictions on HND. I guarantee you that most of the Tokyo service will wind up at HND after that.


User currently offlineavek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4336 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7373 times:

Quoting Vasu (Reply 3):
Surely LGW is to LHR what EWR is to JFK... right?

Not at all.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5311 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7351 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 2):
Gatwick can "say" what they'd like to see, it's the same as BHX, NCL et all, more long haul heavy metal. This doesn't mean that it's in any way likely.

   At this point, LGW is just another UK regional airport. Don't be tricked by its relative proximity to London.


User currently offlineVasu From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 3856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7251 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 7):
At this point, LGW is just another UK regional airport. Don't be tricked by its relative proximity to London.

Ah, ok - thanks for clearing that one up!


User currently offlineplanesarecool From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 4119 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7214 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 5):
and is much less convenient to get to than LHR.

This rubbish comes up in every thread thread about LGW/LHR. Much less convenient than LHR? Because getting on a train for half an hour from one of six central London stations is much less convenient than getting on a tube for 45 minutes, or getting on a tube for 15 mins before sitting on another train for another 15 minutes (and paying through the roof for the privilege)?


User currently offlinefcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 768 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7188 times:

I think that is being a bit disingenuous to Gatwick. It is used by a lot of smaller national airlines as their London destination, think Malev, Adria, Ukraine, Montenegro, Rossiya etc etc. If there was space at LHR they would go there, as some once did, but it is still the second choice for London, even though the multitude of orange tails do make it seem like a low cost airport.

User currently offlinenclmedic From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7172 times:

And you have to think about the companies that currently operate out of the NYC airports...EWR is one of CO's main bases, with JFK being home to DL and AA. There is no such split in London - all the majors are based at LHR with secondary ops at LGW to leisure destinations. I have to agree with previous posters that while LGW is coming on in leaps and bounds in terms of the development, its never really going to attract big-scale, schedules, long-haul business to non-leisure destinations. LHR is the golden egg.

As for regional airports, I'm not so sure. With capacity rapidly approaching at both LGW and LHR, the natural progression will eventually be for further development outside of London. EK has really led the way (DXB out of MAN, BHX, NCL, GLA) and those flights all do very well, so who knows what will be come in the future...


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11611 posts, RR: 60
Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7152 times:

Quoting heebeegb (Thread starter):
The article says about how the lack of US traffic caused QR to leave LGW

That immediately makes me suspicious of the article, as such a statement is incorrect.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineFlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2072 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7108 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 5):
That is an apples to oranges comparison. EWR and JFK are both about the same distance from Manhattan, and both are arguably just as easy to get to. By comparison, LHR is only 15 miles west of the Square Mile, where LGW is 28 miles south, and is much less convenient to get to than LHR.

Yet it is LGW that has the better direct rail links, with regular services from Farringdon, City Thameslink, Blackfriars and London Bridge direct to Gatwick Airport.

What LHR has is the better range of flights, and London to New York via LGW on a once daily flight isn't that attractive for the business traveller when you look at the frequencies that VS, BA/AA, CO and DL all offer from LHR.

If anything came back I wonder if an AA operated 757 on JFK-LGW might work. Not too premium heavy, the right sized aircraft for the market, and would benefit from the AA/BA ATI deal. BA would offer some limited feed from the LGW network, though no where near what it could a decade ago. Still, perhaps more viable than DL or CO on the 757, who would pretty much have to count on O&D at the LGW end.



Let's Go British Caledonian!
User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4234 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7065 times:

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 13):
Quoting apodino (Reply 5):
That is an apples to oranges comparison. EWR and JFK are both about the same distance from Manhattan, and both are arguably just as easy to get to. By comparison, LHR is only 15 miles west of the Square Mile, where LGW is 28 miles south, and is much less convenient to get to than LHR.

Yet it is LGW that has the better direct rail links, with regular services from Farringdon, City Thameslink, Blackfriars and London Bridge direct to Gatwick Airport.

Public perception is that LHR is the easier airport to get to than LGW. I should have clarified that I don't necessarily agree with that, but that is true. Personally I like LGW better than LHR as a passenger, as its just so much easier to navigate.

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 13):

If anything came back I wonder if an AA operated 757 on JFK-LGW might work. Not too premium heavy, the right sized aircraft for the market, and would benefit from the AA/BA ATI deal. BA would offer some limited feed from the LGW network, though no where near what it could a decade ago. Still, perhaps more viable than DL or CO on the 757, who would pretty much have to count on O&D at the LGW end.

There are a number of cities in Europe that BA serves from LGW and not LHR, and as a result really have no connecting feed from the US except from markets like LAS and MCO. I am not sure what the demand is for service to some of those cities from the US, but I would think that a 757 from AA to LGW would be ideal for such a service to take advantage of the JV. I think the issue though is would such a flight have enough O and D and/or premium traffic to justify.


User currently offlinefcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 768 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7014 times:

I get the impression that those who run Gatwick want to shed the 'low cost' image. Unfortunately they are too closely tied to Easyjet for that. As EZY claim to carry a lot of businessmen to major destinations maybe it is them who need to rebrand, ditch the garish low cost image and go for something a bit more classy.

In turn this might change the image of Gatwick.


User currently offlineklwright69 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jan 2000, 2015 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6972 times:

I know for some time CO operated flights to LHR and LGW simultaneously. But it just didn't work. LGW was the ugly stepchild that eventually got the boot.

User currently offlineedina From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 743 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 6876 times:

During both periods of operation BA's JFK services was always the highest load factor with the lowest yield....the figures were marginal at best.


Worked on - Caravelle Mercure A300 A320 F27 SD3-60 BAe146 747-100/200/400 DC10-30 767 777 737-400 757 A319 A321
User currently offline2travel2know2 From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 2566 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 6805 times:

Well, If there's ever a LON-NYC red eyes, it'll surely be from LGW.


I'm not on CM's payroll.
User currently offlineplanesarecool From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 4119 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 6699 times:

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 15):
As EZY claim to carry a lot of businessmen to major destinations maybe it is them who need to rebrand, ditch the garish low cost image and go for something a bit more classy.

Ditch the brand and image that has made them so successful from day one?


User currently offlineaireuropef100 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 39 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 6669 times:

I have to wonder how many people have actually been through LGW since it was sold off by BAA and is now independently owned? Some parts are unrecognisable, there is over £1bn being spent bringing it up to the standard being required by airlines and passengers. North Terminal is being expanded, has a new transport centre, work is on going with departure extension, and Pier 4 is about to be made into a two level pier to make it easier to run without the need for dual dep/arrival ops. South Terminal - the floors have nearly all be replaced, the entire security area has been replaced with a far larger area, the south terminal drop off/pickup area is undergoing a total facelift and works starts on replacing Pier 1 fairly soon.

Its not the lo-cost regional airport which is being made out here. Sure it has not got an NYC link, but what the new owners have secured in new airlines and destinations is pretty amazing - Vietnam Airlines, Air Asia x, Lufthansa returning, Air Nigeria, rumours of Hong Kong Airlines etc. Yes its not the business hub like LHR but many people in the South/South East and parts of London can get to LGW quicker than LHR, someone will eventually fly to NYC, if the slots,fees etc are there, may not be CO(UA)/DL/AA etc perhaps VS but lets stop the LGW knocking.

And by the way Qatar Airways are holding slots for next Summer x5 days a week - the main reason they actually left was aircraft shortage so they could start MAN flights......


User currently offlinereadytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 3177 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6635 times:

Just a late night thought, how about restoring the helecopter link LHR-LGW, Hmmm?


you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5311 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6620 times:

This...

Quoting aireuropef100 (Reply 20):
Yes its not the business hub like LHR but many people in the South/South East and parts of London can get to LGW quicker than LHR

...contradicts this.

Quoting aireuropef100 (Reply 20):
Its not the lo-cost regional airport which is being made out here.

The whole point of a regional airport is to be an easily accessible, lower-cost way to get to major destinations.

Quoting aireuropef100 (Reply 20):
Vietnam Airlines, Air Asia x, Lufthansa returning, Air Nigeria, rumours of Hong Kong Airlines etc.

Sounds pretty comparable to the list of carriers at other regional airports.

And, to be clear, that's not a bad thing at all. I think it will be much better for the airport to develop into a fine facility for the areas SE of London than to try to directly compete with LHR.


User currently offlineBAViscount From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2338 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6587 times:

Quoting aireuropef100 (Reply 20):
but lets stop the LGW knocking.

Agreed.

Let's hope the new owners can go some way to getting it to a modern day version of its glory days of the past. I still remember the days when you could see the likes of Eastern, Western, AA, Braniff, Delta, Piedmont, Continental, Northwest Orient, Cathay Pacific, Air New Zealand, British Caledonian, CP Air, ANA etc., etc. all parked at its gates. Granted some of the airlines I mentioned are no longer around, but there were times when a trip to the LGW viewing terrace could actually be more interesting than going to LHR!!   



Ladies & gentlemen this is Captain Tobias Wilcock welcoming you aboard Coconut Airways flight 372 to Bridgetown Barb
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21510 posts, RR: 55
Reply 24, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6525 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 14):
I would think that a 757 from AA to LGW would be ideal for such a service to take advantage of the JV. I think the issue though is would such a flight have enough O and D and/or premium traffic to justify.

O & D shouldn't be a problem on a 757. Not sure about the premium traffic, though.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
25 fly2yyz : I just wanna jump in with ZX attempted JFK-LGW with horrendous loads and they were a low cost carrier. Could a carrier with connections on both ends m
26 Post contains images PlymSpotter : Because going double daily on Manchester far outweighed the revenue brought in by LGW. To me that isn't an aircraft shortage, that's a financial deci
27 UAL777UK : I agree, having been through LGW a few weeks back its come on leaps and bounds and it has a great future but I think it will be just after I become t
28 IrishAyes : The funny thing is that AA has tried JFK-STN off and on throughout the decades and I'd heard reports that they did very well on these flights - they
29 skipness1E : AA tried ORD-STN when it was expanding into Europe, it was not a success. More recently they flew JFK-STN to kill off EOS and Maxjet, with that comple
30 TIA : This is something that always surprises me. LGW is made out to be like it's so less covenient than LHR, but that's simply not the case. I work in Can
31 Babybus : You are right. For a lot of London getting to LGW is actually easier to get to than LHR. A lot of tube lines connect at Victoria then it's just a 30
32 skipness1E : You're missing the wood for all the trees. It's not about which airport is easy to get to. Airlines use LHR as historically it was BOAC's crossroads f
33 MillwallSean : LHR has the names and is the natural choice for many flagship carriers. Its Londons primary airport and will always remain that. Some airlines want to
34 canyonblue17 : How about ISP to LGW on a WN 737-800?
35 STT757 : Actually 747-100s, 747-200s then DC-10-30s, then 777s and 757s. I don't believe the 767-400 ever operated EWR-London. Not exactly, in London the larg
36 Post contains images seabosdca : It's hardly a unique situation. HND, LIN, SHA, and to a certain extent ORY are all comparable. Even in the US, airports like HOU and DCA fill broadly
37 Post contains images BAViscount : Yep, I flew a CO 742 EWR-LGW back in 1991 - here's a pic of me taken at the EWR gate waiting to board that bad boy, September 1991! : Edited as I got
38 RyanairGuru : I think it did post 9/11. If I remember right EWR-LGW dropped from 2x777 to a 777 and a 764
39 cslusarc : LGW-NYC will only work for the right airline. The best bet today is either UA (with its hub at EWR) or U2 (with its base at LGW). No other airline is
40 LondonCity : That seems logical ... but on the other hand, BA's twice daily (fewer flights at weekends) all-J class NYC service seems to the thriving ex-LCY. Mayb
41 Post contains images PlymSpotter : LCY is indeed a very special exception. I believe at least one financial organisation has contracted a certain number of seats per day/flight, and ot
42 beeweel15 : I agree with you 100%. That was the only reason they flew that route.
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...
NYC UN Summit..movements posted Wed Sep 7 2011 06:37:44 by crownvic
Air Nigeria's LGW Launch? posted Thu Sep 1 2011 08:53:11 by Vasu
Air Southwest Closes PLH/NQY-LGW posted Mon Jan 10 2011 07:39:48 by trb10
Why So Little NYC-YYC/YVR? posted Wed Jan 5 2011 20:22:27 by NYCFlyer
Cool New AA Ad -- An NYC Subway Car posted Mon Jan 3 2011 15:02:11 by qqflyboy
NYC-ZAG In MAY 2011 posted Tue Dec 28 2010 11:14:58 by CB777
NYC Blizzard Diversions posted Sun Dec 26 2010 15:03:12 by planeguy727
OneWorld To Move Headquarters To NYC posted Fri Dec 10 2010 12:35:20 by crosswinds21
BA Reg Query LGW-POS posted Thu Dec 9 2010 03:57:24 by Cambrian
Sun Country To Fly MSP-LGW Summer 2011 posted Sun Dec 5 2010 16:08:45 by af773atmsp