If I am reading the data in the link correctly the LHR arrival slots are at 20.00 hrs on Day 4 and 0735 hrs on Day 7. The departure slots are at 18.25 hrs on Day 5 (after a lay over of 22 hr 25 min) and 1820 hrs on Day 7 (after a 10 hr 45 min layover).
I am thinking that these poor slot times could be one or even the main reason why the service is being discontinued. Aircraft parking charges at LHR are not cheap (unless as per SA you can come to an arrangement with BA to park on their maintenance ramp). The standard BAA charge at the start of Summer 2010 was £7.19 per metric tonne per 15 minutes or part of 15 minutes during operating hours. Between 07.00 and 12.29 GMT these charges were trebled. [Check this out by googling "Heathrow Landing Charges" and scrolling down to "Heathrow Airport" on the recovered links - sorry I cannot make a pasted link work.]
Amongst these slots I think the only one of real value is the Day 5 18.25 departure slot. But paired with an arrival slot almost a day earlier appears to significantly reduce its value. Indeed I would think that it would be of no interest to any airline not hubbed at LHR. Even then I think VS would probably find it difficult to integrate this slot pair into their schedules. BA probably could use the pair by mixing and matching with other slots they currently operate. But the HM slots do not appear to me to be of any value to Arik.
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 18376 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 8344 times:
Quoting VV701 (Reply 2): I am thinking that these poor slot times could be one or even the main reason why the service is being discontinued.
They certainly don't help, but ultimately running an airline where 99.9% of your passengers are offshore in your spokes is incredibly difficult. HA has managed to make it work, but they are the exception. In this instance, HM's passengers are entirely LHR originating, where nobody knows who they are, and certainly aren't likely to pay a premium fare to fly them.
Quoting cchan (Reply 1): Aren't these European flights important for the tourism industry of the Seychelles?
Yes, but funding an airline is expensive; see also TN, JM, anything the Maldives has tried, AQ, CY, etc...
Quoting Babybus (Reply 4): The market for these long haul holidays (in fact honeymoons) must be tiny these days. Isn't there a smaller aircraft they could use with more stops?
They don't stand a chance against QR/EY/EK, even holiday tour operators out of Europe...
2travel2know2 From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 2908 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 7875 times:
Not that many people lives on the Seychelles, but since it's a British Commonwealth, Does it have some kind of SEZ-U.K. VFR O/D traffic?
Probably moving LON flights to STN or LTN instead of dropping it altogether could have made more sense.
ordjoe From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 796 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6451 times:
Not many Americans travel there that is for sure. It is too bad, hopefully BA or VS take this route. Those parking charges are insane, I wonder how much the QF A380's have to pay for all those hours (I suppose they might have the deal with BA)
gardermoen From Australia, joined Jul 1999, 1527 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5452 times:
So if they are pulling out of Europe, Singapore etc, just WHERE do they intend to fly to is what I'd like to know? Not much else around them for source markets, unless they intend to look at China? But then again,is Seychelles too expensive for the Chinese market?
I think the line of airlines wanting further slots at Heathrow is very very long. It would be interesting to know exactly how BAA gives slots. I think it has to do with schedules, (time of day), how many slots and at what times the airline already has etc. I also think the price varies depending on time of day. This is a whole system so it will not just be given away to Arik like that. Many others are in line, like Air China, SAS, Cathay etc etc.
But it would be nice to know the exact rules when it comes to those LHR slots
Quoting VV701 (Reply 2):
Aircraft parking charges at LHR are not cheap (unless as per SA you can come to an arrangement with BA to park on their maintenance ramp)
It already does. BA also does maint for them at LHR.
(The views on this site are my own and no one elses)
They don't use BA parking though, they are remote parked at T4 so they will pay full price I think.
Don't they overnight on the United Mx stands - Perhaps Continted need those stands now ( they have used it for a long stay 75w in the recent past)
And as said above the Air Seychelles slots are valueless to anyone - They will go back into clearing.
Clearly they have lost a major tour operator somewhere Kuoni and/or BA World Holidays?
Certainly suggests the BA Mauritius in for an extension the SEY once again pretty soon
Fcogafa - As to Arik an airline that had TWO DAILY pairs used until just a few weeks ago what is your reasoning for mentioning them.They are a Nigerian carrier operating in a corrupt business environment and until they can get their payment and sales network sorted they are likely to go the way of others from THAT country no matter what their hard product is like !
skipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3468 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3587 times:
Quoting rutankrd (Reply 19): Don't they overnight on the United Mx stands - Perhaps Continted need those stands now ( they have used it for a long stay 75w in the recent past)
There are no "United maintenance stands" at LHR. All remote parking is common use to allow the best use of airbridge equipped gates, any aircraft on a 4 hour layover might spend an hour on the 250s. Air Seychelles use the 450s or 429-431 when parked off stand. These are all common usage and indeed the 450s are again being used for bussing flights.
GBRandSYCguy From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2011, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3428 times:
MarverickM11, do not just assume people in the Seychelles cannot afford to travel. If you do some research you will find out that HM has been wanting to pull out of London for a long time due to poor load factor FROM LHR not SEZ. The only reason it has kept it is because there is a healthy market from the Seychelles during the school holidays in April, August & December as many Seychellois has UK links with Seychelles being in the commonwealth etc...but otherwise it struggled both sides. British holiday makers have never been that popular in the Seychelles (although the royal couple gave it a slight boost), it's more French, German & Italians that goes there. HM is pulling out due aggressive competitions from EK, QR & EY. When BA & AF were sending their planes to SEZ, HM were making profits year after year. They might see AF back due to the codeshare they share with HM but BA or VS i very much doubt it for a long time!
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 8180 posts, RR: 24
Reply 22, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3403 times:
Quoting Navigator (Reply 14): It would be interesting to know exactly how BAA gives slots.
BAA have nothing to do with the issue of LHR slots.
New or confiscated LHR slots are assigned and their usage monitored by Airport Coordination Ltd. They issue and control slots within the parameters laid down by the EU (as is required at all slot constrained airports within the EU. Where new or confiscated slots become available EU regulations require that newcomers must be the preferred applicants for such slots).
Apart from runway arrival and departure slots most so-called "slot constrained" airports are likely to suffer from two other constraints, passenger handling constraints and aircraft stand constraints. So, for example, slots at LHR will be issued taking into account the terminal the aircraft will use (absolute passenger numbers) and whether the flight is international or domestic (in-termial immigration facilities).
I believe (but certainly do not know) that the high stand parking charges are designed specifically to reduce the time spent by aircraft on active stands.
For example if an aircraft was to suffer a minor maintenance problem while parked at a gate and the gate parking charges were low it could be more economic for the airline to leave the aircraft parked at the gate while engineers fixed the problem. High parking charges would probably make it more economic for the airline to have the aircraft towed to a maintenance area to be fixed. This, of course, would then free the gate for use by another aircraft.
A simpler example is an aircraft arriving in the early morning on a long haul flight that has been scheduled to depart at, say, around lunch time on its next flight. Low parking charges might make it more economic for the airline to leave the aircraft on its terminal stand than have it towed and parked on a ramp of which the airline is the lessor. So again high parking charges encourage the more efficient use of any given stand partricularly when the airline operates a hub at that airport and has its own permanently leased ramp space.
A strong indicator that the above supposition is correct is the lack of night time charges at LHR. Of course when the airport is closed there is no urgency for the airport operator to try to free stand space. And if parking charges were purely or mainly revenue and not operation driven then one would expect BAA to make at least a small charge for overnight parking.