Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
KE Pulls LGW-SEL  
User currently offlinejet72uk From UK - England, joined Oct 2011, 102 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 12035 times:

KE have announced the cancellation of the LGW-SEL route. This was originally suspended until April but the decision has now been taken to pull it permanently. Source AirlineRoute.

55 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFCAA321 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2011, 22 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 12047 times:

The code is ICN for Seoul.

User currently offlinejet72uk From UK - England, joined Oct 2011, 102 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 12001 times:

SEL is also used as the airport code

User currently offlineJosh32121 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 11949 times:

Quoting jet72uk (Reply 2):
SEL is also used as the airport code

It's not an airport code. It's a city code. It used to be the airport code for Gimpo Airport until Incheon was opened, and Gimpo was assigned GMP. SEL is now the city code for all Seoul airports.


User currently offlineyowza From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 4891 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 11922 times:

Quoting jet72uk (Reply 2):
SEL is also used as the airport code

SEL is Seoul Kimpo. ICN is Seoul Incheon. These are not the same or interchangeable. I believe the flight in question is LGW-ICN.

YOWza



12A whenever possible.
User currently offlineLondonCity From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2008, 1494 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 11926 times:

This doesn't come as a surprise. Now that BA has entered the route, but flying from LHR rather than LGW, there will be less of a need for KE's LGW service.

User currently offlinegilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3029 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 11814 times:

Regardless of the IATA code for Seoul, which you guys seem more concerned about discussing. This is a great shame.

The airline managed to pull some big players and prestigious routes to the airport, but unfortunately these seem to have back fired and have lost LH to FRA, HX to HKG and now this Seoul service with KE.

Also the long established US Airways service to CLT is soon to be moved to LHR...

I wonder how the Vietnam Airlines service is doing and wonder if this is a matter of time before this stopped or moved to LHR - if and when slots become available. Also I think AeroMexico is still operating from their.

Even if the routes from LGW do make money, it seems the likes of LHR makes a LOT LOT more money!

It seems the only airlines that can make long haul work at LGW, and last is the likes of BA and VS and these are primarily to leisure destinations or ex-colonial routes with a large market of these populations living in the UK.

[Edited 2013-01-03 08:44:09]

User currently offlinejet72uk From UK - England, joined Oct 2011, 102 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 11710 times:

Yes there will be no American carriers once US leaves. In fact the only USA destinations will be LAS, MCO, TPA. Still no Paris link either. Just a slight correction LH resumes FRA in April.

User currently offlinefcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 804 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 11705 times:

Maybe KAL will put an A380 on the LHR route instead, or may revert to B744's.

User currently offlinekq787 From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 65 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 11687 times:

wonder if this means that the KE ICN-LHR flight will be upgraded to the A380

User currently offlinebabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 11551 times:

I guess this suggests that London is not the final destination of the majority of the passengers on the flight.

What we really need then for Gatwick is a dedicated scheduled regional and inter-European carrier to bring it back as a viable alternative to LHR.


User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6878 posts, RR: 75
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 11321 times:

Quoting yowza (Reply 4):
SEL is Seoul Kimpo. ICN is Seoul Incheon. These are not the same or interchangeable. I believe the flight in question is LGW-ICN.

SEL is the city code, Gimpo Airport is GMP while Incheon is ICN. So using SEL isn't entirely wrong... although saying pulling SEL-LON would be wrong   



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7584 posts, RR: 43
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 11184 times:

Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 6):
Also I think AeroMexico is still operating from their.

No. AM never served LGW. It was MX. But they went bust. AM just very recently launched MEX-LHR. AM uses T4 at LHR alongside the rest of the SkyTeam members.



Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently offlineLH7478i From Germany, joined Jan 2012, 56 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10118 times:

Quoting jet72uk (Reply 7):
Just a slight correction LH resumes FRA in April.

Seems like LH is even flying now. I did a quick check on their website and it shows flights from FRA with the A340-600 and from MUC with the A340-300.



A319, A320, A321, A333, A346, B733, B735, B73G, B738, B744, B748, B757, B767, CRJ200, CRJ700, CRJ900, EMB135, EMB145, E1
User currently offlinesteman From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 1391 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10006 times:

Quoting LH7478i (Reply 13):
Seems like LH is even flying now. I did a quick check on their website and it shows flights from FRA with the A340-600 and from MUC with the A340-300.

I believe they referred to Lufthansa´s LGW service, not LH´s ICN routes  


User currently onlinecedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8118 posts, RR: 54
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9645 times:

I just don't understand why LGW is so bad at keeping long haul airlines / "good" airlines (no disrespect to easyJet). It has it's own catchment area that contains millions, literally millions of people, many of whom are wealthy and middle class and frequent travellers, and some of whom are the wealthiest people on the planet. Surrey, Sussex (the runway is half in each county), Kent - it's hours of driving from some parts of these areas to Heathrow. Come on, half of Brighton are professional musicians who spend half their life on tour, the rest of whom are designers, finance people, celebrities, wealthy young professionals, you name it and Heathrow is such a pig to get to from Brighton. That's one town. There are hundreds of others like it, towns much closer to Gatwick, packed with CEOs who frequent boardrooms in New York and Mexico City and Shanghai (and yes, Seoul) and rich retired couples who love Hong Kong and their grandkids who know San Francisco, Goa, and Melbourne like their own backyard. There are millions of these people in Sussex and Surrey! And LGW can't keep a single flight by a US carrier. Soon the only transatlantic from LGW will be Virgin to Vegas and dear old Air Transat. Yet half the punters heading to Heathrow are driving past the M23 spur of the M25 which would have them at Gatwick in ten minutes.

Anyone got the slightest clue what's going on here? It's the single biggest mystery in aviation today if you ask me. To clarify - I understand why LHR is the world's number 1 - London is the hub of international life and generates a tsunami of high yield O&D traffic, which in turn creates such a critical mass as a connecting point that you can add a tonne of transit traffic. A f***tonne (technical term, don't panic). What I'm saying is, Gatwick has a massive catchment area that doesn't even include London*!

* and oh wait, one more thing - LGW also has a train that runs every fifteen mins into Victoria station, an infinitely more central terminus than the LHR Express terminus at Paddington, and with a journey time of only half an hour - so why not include London as a catchment area? that's a route into town most airports of the world would give a kidney to have!



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineAirAfreak From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9547 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Anyone have any ideas what the loads/yield looks like on Korean Air to Gatwick?

How is the BA flight doing to ICN, btw?

Thanks for any info!

Air Afreak



Do you lead an Intercontinental life?
User currently offlineLondonCity From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2008, 1494 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9546 times:

I'm always surprised that BA never made a success of its LGW-JFK service when you consider LGW's affluent catchment area.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 15):
and oh wait, one more thing - LGW also has a train that runs every fifteen mins into Victoria station, an infinitely more central terminus than the LHR Express terminus at Paddington,

There's also x 4 Southern Trains an hour to Victoria and x 4 Thameslink services to London Bridge and the City.


User currently online2travel2know2 From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 2631 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 9270 times:

ICN-LGW made some sense in KE wanted to offer red-eyes from ICN to LON and couldn't get slots that early in the morning @ LHR.
I'm surprised KE cancelled ICN-LGW altogether not even operating red eyes westbound it a couple of days per week high-season, with the same aircraft flown to LHR (for crews sake) only the days KE knows it runs into capacity problems to/from LHR.



I'm not on CM's payroll.
User currently offlineRichcandy From UK - England, joined Aug 2001, 723 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7989 times:

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 15):
Anyone got the slightest clue what's going on here? It's the single biggest mystery in aviation today if you ask me. To clarify - I understand why LHR is the world's number 1 - London is the hub of international life and generates a tsunami of high yield O&D traffic, which in turn creates such a critical mass as a connecting point that you can add a tonne of transit traffic. A f***tonne (technical term, don't panic). What I'm saying is, Gatwick has a massive catchment area that doesn't even include London*!

Hi

I don't why LGW hasn't been able to keep LH/KE etc and also VS/BA services to JFK/EWR.

It could be marketing, with overseas passengers flying to London thinking Heathrow rather than anywhere else.

I also wonder is it at least in part due to internal issues within airlines. I once was told that an airline cancelled a route not because it was not making money. But because internal management were worried that it was effecting revenue on another route.

The US carriers that did use LGW as a London destination were all very keen to move to LHR as they believed that revenue is higher there. Then once they started to move services they didn't want some flights at LGW and some at LHR so Gatwick lost out.

I just wonder whats going to happen in time. If Heathrow gets to a point were its full are we going to see more people flight indirect and using LCY. Or maybe even direct Eurostar services to CDG!

Alex


User currently offlineTC957 From UK - England, joined May 2012, 877 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 7798 times:

New York seems to have little trouble in attracting the same long haul airline to both JFK and EWR, so it might be the sky high rate of UK,s APD taxes that contribute the LGW,s long-haul demise.

User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3255 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 7679 times:

It's nothing to do with APD. This has been discussed so many times, it's market behaviour. BCAL, Laker and very nearly VS failed because LGW fills from the back forward and LHR fills from the front back. It was ever thus. LGW-JFK on BA ha the worst yields of all their LON-NYC flights, go figure.

User currently offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1738 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 7509 times:

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 15):
I just don't understand why LGW is so bad at keeping long haul airlines / "good" airlines (no disrespect to easyJet).

LGW is an O&D airport, not a transfer airport so long haul traffic with the exception of the BA and VS bucket and spade flights (which to an extent include Vietnam Airlines) and EK, there is no way it can viably work. LHR is where all the connections are, it has a MUCH MUCH bigger catchment area than Gatwick and is easily reachable from more areas of the country.

I'm sorry LGW.. I appreciate your attempts to become a viable long haul hub but it just ain't going to happen.



Next Flights: LHR-OSL (319-BA), OSL-LHR (319-BA), LHR-CPH (320-BA), VXO-BMA (S20-TF), ARN-CPH (738-SK), CPH-LHR (320-BA)
User currently offlinebabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 7336 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 21):
LGW fills from the back forward and LHR fills from the front back.

I don't believe that theory at all. There may be a higher incidence of J and F passengers at LHR but Y is the bread and butter of all airlines. What LHR has is more opportunities for pax to transfer domestically and to Europe. Who wants to get off a scheduled long haul route and get on a Ryanair or easyjet flight? None I would guess.

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 22):
I'm sorry LGW. I appreciate your attempts to become a viable long haul hub but it just ain't going to happen.

It does happen. LGW goes through these fads and fashions, these ups and downs. What's wrong, afteral, with LGW being a cheap flight airport full of sardine can charters and demeaning LCC's. There's money in them hills.

Does LGW have to be LHR. No, not really. There are fewer people travelling these days and it makes sense for KE to consolidate at LHR until a point when economic activity improves.


User currently offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1738 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 7285 times:

Quoting babybus (Reply 23):
Does LGW have to be LHR. No, not really. There are fewer people travelling these days and it makes sense for KE to consolidate at LHR until a point when economic activity improves.

Also, I think it is quite reasonable to assume that KE start flights to LGW due to slot restrictions preventing a new flight to LHR.

KE will most likely upgrade to the A380 out of LHR although the plane is in such a low config it probably won't have much of a dent.



Next Flights: LHR-OSL (319-BA), OSL-LHR (319-BA), LHR-CPH (320-BA), VXO-BMA (S20-TF), ARN-CPH (738-SK), CPH-LHR (320-BA)
25 factsonly : If there is one very obvious airline missing from LGW than it must be KLM. The Dutch airline operates from most UK airports to AMS in order to feed it
26 skipness1E : Continental, USAirways, Delta, Cathay Pacific, Air New Zealand, NWA, Korean Air (twice), Virgin Atlantic, Laker, Hong Kong Airlines etc etc all found
27 skipness1E : They don't operate from any other London airports as they gave LCY to WX and pulled Transavia from LGW. If LH can't make FRA work year round against
28 gabrielchew : It's true that for a large number of affluent southeasterners, LGW is more convenient that LHR. However, for the vast majority of the country, the fi
29 SKAirbus : Also LHR is an established hub for transfer passengers. I think LGW could becoming more of a hub if the likes of U2 allowed transfers. Some LCCs are
30 Post contains links LondonCity : According to this article, the ICN-LGW service is used a lot by Korean group tourists so the yields cannot be great. In addition, we are now running
31 jet72uk : SKAirbus is wrong on so many counts.
32 Post contains images nclmedic : Because while JFK/NYC will always have appeal as a leisure route, this sort of travel is almost entirely seasonal which makes it almost impossible to
33 bongodog1964 : If Y is the "bread and butter" of all airlines, why is it the case for every long haul aircraft operated by BA from LHR at least 50% of the cabin flo
34 nclmedic : I suppose the premise is that airlines 'break even' with Y passengers, and make all their profit with J/F passengers. The majority of bookings on air
35 Fly2yyz : Kind of makes you wonder how ZX survived on their LGW-JFK flights, I'm sure they were doing fine until they started fooling around with the timings ie
36 factsonly : The answer is simple. The London market is absolutely massive and the catchment area for LGW is quite separate from the catchment area of LHR, all be
37 skipness1E : The examples you cite have had KLM the dominant carrier for years whereas at LGW they'd be the newbie. One other things is that they seem keen to focu
38 fcogafa : The next question is - why have they been 'slot sitting' for so long? Sometimes there are three smaller aircraft in two hours at LHR on the AMS route
39 JerseyFlyer : The notable exception, as in many things, is EK which has been ferrying Londoners and SE Englanders into its DXB hub from LGW for years, complementar
40 justinlee : Just wondering when Air China will drop the PEK-LGW service.
41 Post contains links LondonCity : You make a good point. EK must have a good marketing department. It also helps that EK serves so many destinations beyond DXB. I am surprised that QR
42 by738 : But QR doesnt and didnt have nearly as many connecting opportunities as EK. For the general public they are not quite as well known as EK either.
43 skipness1E : The best word to describe EK is exceptional, in that the usual rules don't seem to apply. QR have worked to build up LHR to 4-5 daily which I suspect
44 anstar : I believe I read somewhere that VS said once they moved a flight from LGW to LHR the yields were up something like 15-20%. Exactly - The premium mark
45 planesailing : I was involved with the withdrawl of DL from LGW and am now based at LHR for another carrier. DL only managed a small number of connections daily, the
46 LJ : The answer is simple, it's use it or loose it, and Skyteam doesn't want to loose the slots. They may hope to exchange the slots for slots with better
47 skipness1E : Though not under the KLM brand as the route was given to CityJet in early 2009 and even KGS is now closed.
48 skipness1E : Final Korean Airlines ICN tonight as HL7721 operated KE909 / 910. I had not realised that the service no longer nightstopped? I thought that was the i
49 Fly2yyz : Did you grab a shot of it skippness!?
50 skipness1E : Arrived and departed in deepest darkness alas, on 08R which was worse.
51 TC957 : Sad that KE pulled the service. They should have kept the timings as it was before with a late afternoon departure from ICN and an early morning arriv
52 Flighty : Well said, solid post. Posts like that are what makes this website worth reading. Yes, seems like it. One time this EK ticket agent raised such an ey
53 Fly2yyz : Minimum connect time for KE to KE at ICN is 45 minutes as it seems which does give good connection opportunity and not just Japan. I figure yield wis
54 xjramper : I do it almost on a monthly basis, connecting thru LHR that is. Altho I think it was a tounge-in-cheek remark in reference to not a lot of options vi
55 skipness1E : Flighty I think perhaps you need to look and see how the market behaves. It's not marketing, it's critical mass of connections and it most certainly i
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...
KE 777 NRT-SEL posted Fri May 8 2009 07:39:21 by Jetskipper
KE Pulling Off LGW Route. posted Thu Nov 29 2012 02:54:20 by TC957
Delivery Of KE 748I's And 787's? posted Wed Dec 26 2012 21:37:14 by wedgetail737
Virgin LGW Fleet Update posted Tue Dec 25 2012 11:50:51 by cipango
So We Have The JV With DL/VA, LGW Return? posted Fri Dec 21 2012 13:58:09 by xjramper
KE Dropping LAX-NRT? posted Mon Dec 17 2012 13:38:40 by ANA787
Meridiana To Axe LGW-Florence posted Mon Dec 17 2012 06:18:51 by LondonCity
Icelandair Back At LGW? posted Sun Dec 2 2012 13:53:49 by LGWflyer
KE A380 To ATL - Dec. 8 posted Fri Nov 30 2012 18:52:19 by captainstefan
Qantas Pulls Support From Tourism Australia posted Tue Nov 27 2012 20:44:16 by BoeingVista