TC957 From UK - England, joined exactly 1 years ago today! , 336 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6011 times:
Sad news...last flight ICN - LGW is 12 Jan. Had the news from my source at LGW and also Galileo showing all dates closed for reservation after 12 Jan.
A real blow. I guess they should have stuck to their orginal flight timings, as timings are too close to their LHR flight now, so no choice for buisness travellers.
TC957 From UK - England, joined exactly 1 years ago today! , 336 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5923 times:
fcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 633 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5869 times:
I wonder if this makes an A380 more likely for the LHR service? When LGW service started the LHR flights mostly went from B744 to B77W, presumably because the loads were split.
EddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7176 posts, RR: 45 Reply 12, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3649 times:
Quoting fcogafa (Reply 6):
I wonder if this makes an A380 more likely for the LHR service? When LGW service started the LHR flights mostly went from B744 to B77W, presumably because the loads were split.
Good point. I wonder the same. I think LHR will get the A380 sooner or later.
jet72uk From UK - England, joined Oct 2011, 102 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3476 times:
I have some load figures for both LGW and LHR. Apr-Sep the LGW route was 87% load factor whereas LHR was 91%. Forward bookings for winter were poor for LGW which is why route will operate summer only. Winter from LHR isn't great but of course they will not pull LHR. I'm sure LGW are quite happy with this arrangement. LHR now has BA, KE and Asiana competing on the route so naturally KE will suffer.
It's not passengers who want to fly from LHR, it's airlines that are LHR obsessed because of its hub status which forces pax in SE to 'choose' LHR because that's where the flight options are. Catch 22.
LHR isn't properly connected to the national rail network so it's a nightmare to access via rail unless you live in London. most pax going to/from LHR by rail have to use the tube or express/connect into Paddington and then change to Euston, kings cross, St Pancras, Liverpool St, Victoria stations to get out of London. Whereas LGW and STN have direct terminal connections onto national rail making them more pax friendly if the airlines served them.
Outside of the SE in the regions it's often better to fly east bound or to africa via AMS, CDG, FRA, BRU or use facilities like MAN to fly transatlantic on UA, AA, DL, US, VS, EI or eastbound on SQ, EK, QR, EY and AY.
MAN has great national rail connections and with the BE hub it offers interlining from other parts of the British isles on longhaul services.
babybus From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3512 posts, RR: 6 Reply 15, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2774 times:
Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 1): The sad truth is, LGW is never going to work as a major long haul hub when the airlines and passengers all want to fly to LHR.
For many Londoners LGW is just as convenient as LHR if not more convenient. If you are going to the centre of London LGW is probably the better airport.
I think any lack of support for a route out of Gatwick is due to the lack of advertising and different facilities. Everyone knows that Heathrow serves the world. Gatwick has longer security queues and the South Terminal feels like a shopping centre. North Terminal involves walks to the gate that are far too long.
It is also possible that a flight out of Gatwick may not have the same level of in-flight service as a flight out of Heathrow. It is this that usually affects which airport I fly from.
and with that..cabin crew, seats for landing please.
vectismanpaul From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2012, 58 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2764 times:
I believe on most BA flights from Gatwick especially since the introduction of the new catering schedules the level of in-flight service is pretty similar to Heathrow with probably no difference on their long haul flights for the classes operated.
skipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 2376 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2632 times:
They're not obsessives they're business. The same aircraft will make X profit at LGW and X+Y at LHR. BA can't make LGW-JFK work well enough. It's business, not personal.
vectismanpaul From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2012, 58 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2588 times:
Skipness 1E is absolutely correct. However I believe both he and myself agree that there is room for a decent BA operation focused on point to point short and long haul primarily leisure traffic, which on the correct routes can have a decent yield. Any business traffic and connecting traffic on top of that is icing on the cake.
Sorry Skipness if I have assumed too much but I respect your understanding of these matters.
V.
LGWflyer From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2011, 2348 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2541 times:
Quoting skipness1E (Reply 17): They're not obsessives they're business. The same aircraft will make X profit at LGW and X+Y at LHR. BA can't make LGW-JFK work well enough. It's business, not personal.
Could someone like AA who are strong partners with BA have at least one daily 757 flight to LGW? I know this has been mentioned loads of times but now with US Airways maybe about to leave LGW as well, I'd like to see at least a US airline have a route from here. I'd rather fly from here than go up to LHR as many people would, could they make it work now that no DL and maybe US are not at Gatwick?
ZaphodB From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 77 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2398 times:
Whether it is justified or not (in terms of financial demographics it probably isn't) LHR has achieved the critical mass (including global name recognition) necessary to suck in all the high yield traffic in the south east. Crossrail will soon eliminate Gatwick's trump card - faster train connections to The City and West End. LGWs future probably is EZY, the beach fleets of BA & VS, and maybe Eireflot and FlyBE ... it isn't going to compete with LHR for carriers like KE.
It's not much different here - neither I nor anyone I work with would willingly go down to MIA if there were direct flights from FLL (even though FLL is getting increasingly ratty and most of MIA has improved a lot) but MIA has the critical mass where the number of non-stop destinations and the number of connection possibilities pulls in the traffic. Despite the attention seeking nouveau riche in Miami most of the money fled northwards a long time ago, and most of MIA's natural catchment area is absolutely dirt poor ... but MIA has that critical mass and there is no way FLL or PBI can compete.
migair54 From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 1279 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2368 times:
Quoting LGWflyer (Reply 19): Could someone like AA who are strong partners with BA have at least one daily 757 flight to LGW? I know this has been mentioned loads of times but now with US Airways maybe about to leave LGW as well, I'd like to see at least a US airline have a route from here. I'd rather fly from here than go up to LHR as many people would, could they make it work now that no DL and maybe US are not at Gatwick?
I also think that they could make it work, they have plenty of flights to LHR so why not to try one to LGW??
Quoting skipness1E (Reply 17): BA can't make LGW-JFK work well enough. It's business, not personal.
Because they need to dedicate a crew, plane and resources out of the normal operating base, but AA is just a few hotel rooms and let all the other to BA handling and etc....
Quoting EddieDude (Reply 12): Good point. I wonder the same. I think LHR will get the A380 sooner or later.
I´m not sure, specially now than BA is also on the route, i think they can make more revenue in other places.
Quoting babybus (Reply 15): It is also possible that a flight out of Gatwick may not have the same level of in-flight service as a flight out of Heathrow. It is this that usually affects which airport I fly from.
In flight meal is a contract with LSG or Skychefs or whatever, so you get what you pay for... so they can get a very good product, quite similar if not the same than in LHR, in flight service must be KE standards because that doesn´t depend on the destination but the airline. The only thing might be the business lounges.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10682 posts, RR: 100 Reply 23, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2103 times:
Quoting TC957 (Reply 2): Try telling that to all the business travellers in the Brighton area,East Sussex and Kent.
As already noted, if there were that many, the flights would be profitable and would stick around.
Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 5): Gatwick doesn't even have a flight to New York; not even a measly, tiny little UA 757. need I go on ??
Wow... That amazes me. Time for TATL NEO or MAX to put something on that route...
Quoting skipness1E (Reply 17): The same aircraft will make X profit at LGW and X+Y at LHR. BA can't make LGW-JFK work well enough. It's business, not personal.
And that is the route cause. Now that BA has the BMI slots, I expect some of their LGW operation to move over to take advantage of the connections. Its not personal, as noted, it is the 'economy of scale' of the major hub.
Which is why I do not understand why LHR isn't expanding! "Economy of scale" is always relative. With air travel set to continue its doubling ever 15 years, LHR's relative 'economy of scale' is going to drop (e.g., versus PVG, the new Beijing, ICN, DWC, the new Istanbul 5-runway airport, FRA w/new terminal, CLT/IAD/IAH, and other major airports). While it will always be a important airport, the competitiveness will drop without expansion. There is an old phrase in industry "you grow or you rot." LHR doesn't have much growth ahead...
skipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 2376 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1949 times:
Quoting migair54 (Reply 21): Because they need to dedicate a crew, plane and resources out of the normal operating base, but AA is just a few hotel rooms and let all the other to BA handling and etc....
Think you've got that one round the wrong way. The core reason is that if they want to put another aircraft onto NYC-LON, the optimal position is JFK-LHR. LGW is sub-optimal in that the yield is lower, as demonstrated by the actions of BA, VS, DL, CO, NW and US who have ALL moved most/all routes out of LGW. The remainder fall into a different pot of point to point high yield leisure and this is why BA and VS maintain the Beach Fleet out of Gatters.
Quoting LGWflyer (Reply 19): Could someone like AA who are strong partners with BA have at least one daily 757 flight to LGW? I know this has been mentioned loads of times but now with US Airways maybe about to leave LGW as well, I'd like to see at least a US airline have a route from here. I'd rather fly from here than go up to LHR as many people would, could they make it work now that no DL and maybe US are not at Gatwick?
They could, however they won't as it's not the optimal place to do so as per above. If it was worth doing, the yield on the one remaining LGW-US on US Airways would have made it worthwhile to keep it on.
Quoting vectismanpaul (Reply 18): However I believe both he and myself agree that there is room for a decent BA operation focused on point to point short and long haul primarily leisure traffic, which on the correct routes can have a decent yield. Any business traffic and connecting traffic on top of that is icing on the cake.
Agreed, the ERJ-190 might be a better bet for LGW business type routes but that's not the business model at the moment. I understand long haul does rather well and short haul is an accepted loss maker ( to an extent ! ) as they need somewhere for the DYKWIAs of this world to spend all those hard earmed AVIOS points. Not sure how much I believe that LGW short haul ever will stand on it's own merits as a profit making entity....
25 aerorobnz: Just a sign of the times. More and more airlines are operating for seasons when they know they can make money, and not when they can't. Makes sense to
26 HeeseokKoo: The numbers are quite strong, although this summer would have been exceptional due to the olympics. I can also imagine 380 will run for LHR without r
27 kdhurst380: I'm not sure when you last flew out of LGW, but for the last 2 or so years, I haven't queued for more than 5 minutes, even during peak times. Gatwick
28 jwhite9185: Already operated LGW-EWR quite a few times over the years, but eventually shifted the VS001/2 to LHR around 1990, then the VS017/18 to LHR in 2001/20
29 mah4546: Like it or not, Miami also has a much wealtheir catchment area and significantly more business traffic. Doesn't help that FLL is as close to third-wo
Sponsor Message: 
From UK - England, joined exactly 1 years ago today! 
, 336 posts, 
From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1327 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24621 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 8264 posts, 
From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 1404 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1964 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7176 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 77 posts, 
From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 1279 posts, 
"Economy of scale" is always relative. With air travel set to continue its doubling ever 15 years, LHR's relative 'economy of scale' is going to drop (e.g., versus PVG, the new Beijing, ICN, DWC, the new Istanbul 5-runway airport, FRA w/new terminal, CLT/IAD/IAH, and other major airports). While it will always be a important airport, the competitiveness will drop without expansion. There is an old phrase in industry "you grow or you rot." LHR doesn't have much growth ahead...
Printer friendly format 
