LGWflyer From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2011, 2348 posts, RR: 1 Posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6748 times:
This year we have had Air Asia, Vietnam, Lufthansa and now Korean who announced they will be coming to LGW. I was wondering if anyone knew or could take a guess in to who is likely to be next at Gatwick... Isn't Garuda considering coming back?
mdavies06 From Hong Kong, joined Aug 2009, 401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 6563 times:
Wasn't AR looking to add London? If they still are then I'd guess they would also consider LGW along with LHR. As Skyteam is the weakest of the three major alliances I can see AR considering LGW along with VN and KE. As you say, GA may also consider LGW as well although as a Skyteam member I can see them adding CDG first before London. With CDG and AMS they have the UK pretty much covered at a basic (non-metal kind of) level.
Summa767 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2621 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 6391 times:
Avianca requested daily slots for LGW for this Winter, to operate the route LGW-BOG (arrival 1 pm, departure 3 pm) only to cancel them soon afterwards.
Even though they would prefer LHR, it is still likely that they might come to LGW. If so, it would most likely be in Q1 2012, as AV take delivery of their 8th A330 in January. Service is unlikely to start at daily, though.
eljonno From Australia, joined Sep 2008, 176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4597 times:
I would love to see this happening, it might merely be personal bias but I have always preferred LGW over LHR anyway and from a passenger perspective it is a much more pleasant experience then terminals 1,3 and 4 at LHR (T5 is admittedly very impressive though) - especially with all the recent investment in facilities. I have never completely understood how on earth the airlines don't see it that way and still insist that passengers want to fly to LHR.
Regarding the second runway though: I was under the impression that GIP had stated their intention was to continue operating and plan growth at Gatwick as a single runway facility for the medium to long term future.
SKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1903 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3718 times:
I think LGW needs to place more emphasis on being an alternative to LHR, instead of an LCC hub. Comparable to EWR.
Gatwick has a lot to offer in terms of getting there:
- Although outside London, it has excellent road links. M23 and M25 nearby.
- The train links are excellent from Victoria and London Bridge as well as Thameslink trains from Bedford, St Pancras and Blackfriars. Also if you take a Southern Train, it will only take about 5-10 minutes longer and costs much less than the Gatwick Express (and Heathrow Express if we are comparing LHR).
I wonder if TG would ever considering starting a service to LGW for VFR traffic with maybe a LGW-HKT or LGW-BKK-HKT route using a 772. I guess there could be opportunities to tie up with Virgin Holidays on this as currently they use other airlines to Thailand.
This might sound a bit outlandish but is there any way Jetstar would consider starting up on the Kangaroo route... Maybe SYD/MEL - SIN/BKK - LGW. Definitely doable with an A330-200. Only problem here is that it may step on Qantas' shoes somewhat but with QF reducing capacity between the UK and OZ some of the VFR stuff could be replaced with Jetstar metal.
India could be a good market for LGW as well... I know that Jet Airways has its European base in Brussels but with the right persuasion, could be persuaded to move this to LGW. This would attracted a lot of local traffic due to the large Indian commuties in the London area and would then offer some direct routes through to New York at cheap prices!
hal9213 From Germany, joined May 2009, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3515 times:
Quoting eljonno (Reply 16): I have never completely understood how on earth the airlines don't see it that way and still insist that passengers want to fly to LHR.
I respect your preference, but there are many many people like me, who think LGW is the absolute hellhole airport in London. My favorite ranking is LCY, LTN, LHR, STN, LGW.
LGW has ultralong walking distances (well, depending on the gate, but how about proper walkways?), the facilities are ancient, and the queue at immigration was always horrbily long. LHR has the benefit of the much cheaper Picadilly line taking the same time (45min to central, same as from LGW, unless you explicity want to go to Victoria or London Bridge =30min).
LGW seriously needs to upgrade their airport facilities and customer experience to keep up with legacy airport standards. But I assume, thats what they are actually doing now. Otherwise, it will stay the secondary cost-cutting option.
SKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1903 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3480 times:
Quoting hal9213 (Reply 21): LGW seriously needs to upgrade their airport facilities and customer experience to keep up with legacy airport standards. But I assume, thats what they are actually doing now. Otherwise, it will stay the secondary cost-cutting option.
The new owners have spent hundreds of millions of pounds so far upgrading facilities... So far:
- New immigration hall at South Terminal with innovative ticket control methods and many more lanes.
- New terminal expansion at North Terminal with a new check in area for British Airways and a new terminal facade.
- New signage throughout the airport.
- Refurbished transit train from North to South Terminal.
- Construction has begun on a new expansion to the South Terminal including replacing the old domestic pier and building a new facade.
- New bagage systems being installed across the airport.
- New glass jetbridges being installed to replace older models.
Give it another year or two and it will be a topnotch airport. Now all they need to do is build that second runway...
staralliance85 From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 205 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3438 times:
I would like to see LGW at the pre-Open Skies Agreement capacity again. Hopefully, UA might operate a EWR-LGW and DL JFK-LGW (already has ATL-LGW). But I think that will be in a few years when the economy picks up. I see AR and GA going to LGW, but not before AMS and CDG where their major Skyteam partner hubs are. AMS and CDG can offer them excellent connections throughout Europe.
: Both these routes were closed in recent years and moved to Heathrow. Every route LHR-ABC vs LGW-ABC "apparently" yields more out of LHR on the North
: Per ATI today, "Turkish Airlines will begin flights to four new destinations including London Gatwick cover the coming months."
: According to http://www.gatwickairport.com/flights/ U2 are moving all UK flights to the North Terminal, so should be some spare gates in the South ter
: Alright, good to hear! Wasn't expecting that, I thought there would have been more space at the South rather than the North...
: It was anounced a while back, it's GLA, ABZ and INV to join BFS and EDI which have the use of Stands 57L and 57R / Gates 55H and 55J in the domestic l
: Yes, I re-read the Gatwick airport website notice, UK domestic would have been clearer.
: I think all this back patting for LGW's new flights needs to be balanced with the number of impending withdrawls/reductions of routes by NAX, SAS, EZY