Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Outlook For London City Airport (LCY)  
User currently offlineSInGAPORE_AIR From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13744 posts, RR: 19
Posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 14105 times:

In recent years London City Airport (LCY) has seen passenger growth from 2.4m in 2006 to 3.0m in 2012, a CAGR of c. +4%.

In the past few years we have seen the recent increases in service such as inter alia: (i) British Airways' London City service; (ii) increased CityJet presence offering a greater range of European and domestic routes; (iii) the introduction of more frequent SWISS services to GVA and ZRH; and (iv) British Airways making a base there for its Cityflyer and associated Embraer fleet.

As per the 2006 Masterplan they were supposed to achieve 3.5m passengers per annum by 2015. However, this appears overly-lofty given that they only managed 3.0m in 2012 and their passenger growth appears very closely correlated to UK GDP, the short-term outlook of which appears sluggish at best.

Nevertheless, the airport seems to be upgrading its infrastructure with a new Western pier featuring new gate and lounge facilities and accommodating Bombardier CSeries-sized aircraft from 2016.

LCY also seems to have capacity to continue to act as spillover given the lack of London-area runway policy from this and most likely subsequent governments.

What's happening with BA's LCY-JFK service given I've seen that the Shannon stopvover will be ceasing due to US immigration issues ?

It would be interesting to hear the views of forum members with regards to the outlook for LCY.


Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
86 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAIR MALTA From Malta, joined Sep 2001, 2515 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 13957 times:

I really don't know what the future holds for LCY but I think that Business routes have reached their peak. BA has tried CPH, GVA, WAW, DUB and they failed. ARN is so so as the route is not operating in July and August. Bucket and Spade have flourished. CityJet is struggling with its route network serving many 2nd tier French and German destinations after loosing ground to BA on many other routes.


Next flights : BRU-ZRH-CAI (LX)/ BRU-FCO-TLV (AZ)
User currently offlineskywaymanaz From United States of America, joined May 2012, 536 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 13816 times:

Quoting SInGAPORE_AIR (Thread starter):
What's happening with BA's LCY-JFK service given I've seen that the Shannon stopvover will be ceasing due to US immigration issues ?

The rumor was the hours were getting cut for US Customs at SNN from 7a-7p to 7a-4p. That would affect the second LCY-SNN-JFK flight of the day. I can't seem to find anything definitive on it one way or the other but they still seem to be on longer scheduled for now.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11667 posts, RR: 60
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 13705 times:

They are going to focus on increasing the average aircraft size, most likely by increasing the minimum passenger service charge upwards towards the 50-70 seat mark, which in turn will drive passenger numbers. To do this they need more than just four new stands and ideally a parallel taxiway, hence the significant expansion and stand replacement planned. Only the four new stands can accommodate the next generation of aircraft (C Series, E-Jet NG etc...), so it really is essential that they get these built. Aside of operating costs, the C Series looks to have up to double the ERJ 190's useful range from LCY, although no doubt the next gen E-Jets will also see major improvements, so these are the aircraft of the future and need to be accommodated. They will also be quieter which should allow for more physical movements using LCY's quota system.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineseansasLCY From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2007, 871 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 13500 times:

As far as I know the original plan to build the new pier has been cancelled. The airport is going to invest £15m in the current stands while looking at what they can do to make the airport stands compatible for the C-Series.

User currently offlineMHG From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 784 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 13088 times:

Quoting SInGAPORE_AIR (Thread starter):

It would be interesting to hear the views of forum members with regards to the outlook for LCY.

Wouldn´t a stop in DUB make sense despite the possibly slightly longer ground time there?
Can´t imagine the added (2nd leg) distance would make it a no-go ...

... or do US Customs at DUB finish work early as well ?



I miss the sound of rolls royce darts and speys
User currently offlinereadytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 3314 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 13019 times:

If the LCY-JFK route is a money maker for BA I feel sure they could come to some arrangement with the US government over labour cost at Shannon.


you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
User currently offlineSInGAPORE_AIR From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13744 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 12420 times:

Quoting AIR MALTA (Reply 1):
Quoting skywaymanaz (Reply 2):
Quoting seansasLCY (Reply 4):

Many thanks.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 3):
Aside of operating costs, the C Series looks to have up to double the ERJ 190's useful range from LCY

Thanks - looking at the CSeries order book though no carriers apart from SWISS with 30x seem relevant to LCY. I don't suppose there's any visibility about potential CSeries services exLCY ? I note BA Cityflyer no longer has any aircraft deliveries in the pipeline.



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineAmricanShamrok From Ireland, joined May 2008, 2930 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 12128 times:

Quoting SInGAPORE_AIR (Thread starter):
What's happening with BA's LCY-JFK service given I've seen that the Shannon stopvover will be ceasing due to US immigration issues ?
Quoting skywaymanaz (Reply 2):
The rumor was the hours were getting cut for US Customs at SNN from 7a-7p to 7a-4p. That would affect the second LCY-SNN-JFK flight of the day. I can't seem to find anything definitive on it one way or the other but they still seem to be on longer scheduled for now

The reduced USCBP work hours have been in effect from the beginning of the winter season (end of October) and flight BA3 still operates as normal. I don't know if passengers are still made disembark at SNN or not (presumably not as it is solely a refuelling stop now). The stopover time is shorter than BA1 though for obvious reasons.

Quoting MHG (Reply 5):
Wouldn´t a stop in DUB make sense despite the possibly slightly longer ground time there?
Can´t imagine the added (2nd leg) distance would make it a no-go ...

... or do US Customs at DUB finish work early as well ?

DUB preclearance also closes 16:00 too, if not earlier.



Shannon-Chicago
User currently offlinephofmannsair From Switzerland, joined Jan 2005, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 11433 times:

Quote:
Thanks - looking at the CSeries order book though no carriers apart from SWISS with 30x seem relevant to LCY. I don't suppose there's any visibility about potential CSeries services exLCY ? I note BA Cityflyer no longer has any aircraft deliveries in the pipeline.

You forgot to add PrivatAir in that list. They ordered 5 (+5 options) CS100
Bombardier press release and they're rumoured to operate those aircraft on behalf of Odyssey (new airline which would be based in LCY) Odyssey

By the way, does anyone have any new about this new airline?


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11667 posts, RR: 60
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 11090 times:

Quoting seansasLCY (Reply 4):
As far as I know the original plan to build the new pier has been cancelled. The airport is going to invest £15m in the current stands while looking at what they can do to make the airport stands compatible for the C-Series.

Very interesting, I had not heard that. The original stands cannot be modified accommodate the CS100 and meet regulations; its tail is too high and will penetrate airspace surfaces, so they must be confident of getting a dispensation. Although I'd love to know how an aircraft with a 35m span is going to self maneuver on a 28m x 40m stand - that will be good to watch!

Quoting SInGAPORE_AIR (Reply 7):
Thanks - looking at the CSeries order book though no carriers apart from SWISS with 30x seem relevant to LCY. I don't suppose there's any visibility about potential CSeries services exLCY ? I note BA Cityflyer no longer has any aircraft deliveries in the pipeline.

My view is that ultimately CityFlyer will replace both the A318 and ERJs with the CS100, and CS300, if it proves to be capable of LCY operations.

Quoting phofmannsair (Reply 9):
By the way, does anyone have any new about this new airline?

I have heard it mentioned that they are one of the parties interested in CityJet - not from one of my more reliable sources though, so take it with a pinch of salt.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineseansasLCY From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2007, 871 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 10292 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 10):
Very interesting, I had not heard that. The original stands cannot be modified accommodate the CS100 and meet regulations; its tail is too high and will penetrate airspace surfaces, so they must be confident of getting a dispensation. Although I'd love to know how an aircraft with a 35m span is going to self maneuver on a 28m x 40m stand - that will be good to watch!

I believe some form of expansion will take place but they are looking at how to best use the space and at least additional cost.

LCY have regular meetings with Bombardier regarding the C-Series so I would imagine a solution will be found.


User currently offlinephofmannsair From Switzerland, joined Jan 2005, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 10214 times:

Quote:
I have heard it mentioned that they are one of the parties interested in CityJet - not from one of my more reliable sources though, so take it with a pinch of salt.

This is very interesting! Do they have a website already?


User currently onlineWingtips56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 406 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 10129 times:

I've not been to LCY, yet, so I don't have an image of how big it is or isn't. But, how much room for expansion is there? I ask because I read the other day that BA had to cancel both of the JFK flights due to the blizzard ... there wasn't room for both 318s to park.
"British Airways A318 G-EUNB Positions to London Gatwick.
February 8, 2013
British Airways A318 G-EUNB positioned London City – London Gatwick this afternoon as BA9158. With both A318s at London City due to the New York weather cancellations today, space was required at London City for the afternoon peak."

The aircraft returned to LCY late this afternoon.



Worked for WestAir, Apollo Airways, Desert Pacific, Western, AirCal and American Airlines
User currently offlineseansasLCY From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2007, 871 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 10045 times:

Quoting Wingtips56 (Reply 13):

I've not been to LCY, yet, so I don't have an image of how big it is or isn't. But, how much room for expansion is there?

Any future expansion would involve further building over part of the dock. The proposals can be seen here
http://www.londoncityairport.com/con...ecial_Edition_%20December_2011.pdf


http://www.londoncityairport.com/AboutAndCorporate/page/ASRP

This page on the website states that "The airport is now working on a new project proposal – the City Airport Development Programme (link to CADP copy) – which builds on the ASRP and provides the enhanced facilities that will allow LCY to maintain its position as the business traveller’s airport of choice"

These are the new plans which haven't yet been made clear.


User currently offlinevfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 4013 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9847 times:

Much will depend on the fate of Cityjet. If they disappear, LCY is heading towards a risky BA Cityflyer monopoly. All other of the few airlines serving LCY - with the exception of Swiss with three destinations - only have a token presence nowadays with just one route (Skywork, Luxair, Blue Islands, Lufthansa, Alitalia).

My feeling is that given the fact that flights from LCY are more expensive than from other LON airports, the airport has reached its peak. A lot of destinations have been tried in the past three or so years but were unprofitable.

Another issue is that LCY traditionally had a strong focus on shorter cross-channel routes. These have already disappeared (e.g. BRU) or are under pressure from the High Speed Trains (AMS, RTM, ANR, PAR).


User currently offlineSInGAPORE_AIR From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13744 posts, RR: 19
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 9653 times:

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 15):
Much will depend on the fate of Cityjet.

Agreed. Irish news reports indicate that 2 preferred bidders will be reached in the next few weeks. An exit from Skyteam affiliation may lead to pax reduction. If AF can't sell it then it'll most likely be downsized given the losses it's incurring which is bad for LCY.



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11667 posts, RR: 60
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 9423 times:

Quoting seansasLCY (Reply 11):
I believe some form of expansion will take place but they are looking at how to best use the space and at least additional cost.
Quoting seansasLCY (Reply 14):
Any future expansion would involve further building over part of the dock. The proposals can be seen here
http://www.londoncityairport.com/con...ecial_Edition_%20December_2011.pdf


http://www.londoncityairport.com/AboutAndCorporate/page/ASRP

This page on the website states that "The airport is now working on a new project proposal – the City Airport Development Programme (link to CADP copy) – which builds on the ASRP and provides the enhanced facilities that will allow LCY to maintain its position as the business traveller’s airport of choice"

These are the new plans which haven't yet been made clear.

The latter are the plans I was aware of, which is for seven new stands and essentially a new terminal building to handle the increased passenger throughput. Stand wise, not much has changed really from the original replacement program plan:

http://www.londoncityairport.com/con.../City_Airport_Development_Plan.pdf

Quoting phofmannsair (Reply 12):
This is very interesting! Do they have a website already?

Not that I am aware of.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 15):
My feeling is that given the fact that flights from LCY are more expensive than from other LON airports, the airport has reached its peak. A lot of destinations have been tried in the past three or so years but were unprofitable.

The expense depends on the individual airline's model, the key is that the operation must be managed correctly for the type of airport LCY is. Get that wrong and it all goes wrong much more quickly than at a regular airport. I don't think the destination turnover is abnormal though.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3284 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 9082 times:

Quoting SInGAPORE_AIR (Thread starter):
What's happening with BA's LCY-JFK service given I've seen that the Shannon stopvover will be ceasing due to US immigration issues ?

Continues as normal with BA003 clearing customs and immigration at JFK.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 10):
its tail is too high and will penetrate airspace surfaces,

What does this mean? 3000ft on QNH is the minimum altitude before you can have any impact on Heathrow inbounds. Is the fin really that big? Blimey,

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 15):

My feeling is that given the fact that flights from LCY are more expensive than from other LON airports, the airport has reached its peak.

They have exchanged smaller niche flights for more mainstream destinations. Growth in recent years has been driven by BA who have gone from ten RJ100s on set up to 6 ER7s and 8 ER9s, a much more capable fleet. Add in two based mainline A318s and you see why the little guys moved out. It's certainly not peaked, the numbers do not back that up.

However, every major legacy has had a go. SAS tried and failed with ARN and CPH, OS tried and failed with VIE, LH tried DUS, HAM, STR MUC etc etc leaving only FRA remaining. We have also seen Darwn on Basle, EuroManx on IOM, Aer Arann also on IOM BA on DUB, CPH, LYS, MXP, FlyBabboo on Geneva and WAW and Air Southwest on PLH/NQY. All been and gone in recent years. The key growth is on BA routes with bigger aircraft and longer jaunts to the sun, the survival or otherwise of WX will be a deciding factor in whether this continues.

[Edited 2013-02-10 17:28:29]

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25626 posts, RR: 22
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 9055 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 18):
Quoting SInGAPORE_AIR (Thread starter):
What's happening with BA's LCY-JFK service given I've seen that the Shannon stopvover will be ceasing due to US immigration issues ?

Continues as normal with BA003 clearing customs and immigration at JFK.

Excerpt from BA website since last October:
http://www.britishairways.com/travel/cwlconarrival/public/en_ch

Arriving at New York JFK

Clearing US immigration at Shannon means that you bypass US Immigration and Customs at JFK.* Simply follow the signs to exit the airport, collecting any bags you have checked in from the domestic baggage hall on the way and head straight into New York.

*From 28 October 2012 this service will be available on flight BA001 only.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8763 times:

Quoting SInGAPORE_AIR (Reply 7):
Thanks - looking at the CSeries order book though no carriers apart from SWISS with 30x seem relevant to LCY. I don't suppose there's any visibility about potential CSeries services exLCY ?
Quoting phofmannsair (Reply 9):
You forgot to add PrivatAir in that list. They ordered 5 (+5 options) CS100
Bombardier press release and they're rumoured to operate those aircraft on behalf of Odyssey (new airline which would be based in LCY) Odyssey


Beat me to it !   BBD have stated that the CS100 (but not the CS300) will be certified for LCY 'out of the box' and also for LCY-JFK n/s ETOPS. I'd be shocked if you didn't see Privat Air (operating for Odyssey) move into LCY-JFK flights. As well, in all-J config, the CS100 can carry either 44 or 48 pax, vs BA A318s 32.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 10):
My view is that ultimately CityFlyer will replace both the A318 and ERJs with the CS100, and CS300, if it proves to be capable of LCY operations.

That seems a reasonable projection to me.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3284 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8671 times:

Quoting Wingtips56 (Reply 13):

Isn't the LGW trip maintenance related? It's a common weekend trip. LCY isn't maxed out on stands as it used to be, 12-14 are barely used and 11 was withdrawn. Sounds like they just positioned down a day early for routine maintenance, BA Source is inferring an issue where none exists? I haven't seen then max out stands in years now.

[Edited 2013-02-10 18:23:31]

User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11667 posts, RR: 60
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8627 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 18):
What does this mean? 3000ft on QNH is the minimum altitude before you can have any impact on Heathrow inbounds. Is the fin really that big? Blimey,

Yeah it's 3,001ft - I mean what are the chances  

But seriously, the airspace surface it penetrates is the transitional surface. This is essentially a triangular wedge which begins from the edge of the clearway (FYI - think of the clearway as a 150m wide strip along the length of the runway, bisected by the centreline down its middle) and rises vertically away from the runway at one of two gradients; 1 in 5 for a runway with a non precision instrument approach and 1 in 7 for a runway with a precision instrument approach, of which LCY falls into the latter. This means the 'tailroom' at the front of LCY's original stands is 4.9m and 8.9m at the back, nearest the terminal. That's pretty tight even for the 146/RJ, or at least it would be if there wasn't a dispensation on meeting this requirement due to the relevant gradient being 1 in 6 when LCY was built. So the headroom at the back of the stands is actually 10.3m, which is pretty much bang on the height of an ERJ 190 - the tallest aircraft allowed on the original stands, even then I think there may be a dispensation involved - but LCY is full of dispensations.

So the 11.5m high CS100 and 12.5m high A318 can (wingspan issues aside) only use the new line of stands to the east, where the clearance is 8.2m at the front and 14.8m at the back, hence why aircraft still have to park nose out. Another headache for LCY will be the NG E-Jets, which are going to be higher to accommodate the new engines. The 170NG should still fit on the original stands, unless they really do increase the span, but the 190NG won't.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineLH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 799 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 8076 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 20):
Beat me to it ! BBD have stated that the CS100 (but not the CS300) will be certified for LCY 'out of the box' and also for LCY-JFK n/s ETOPS.

Why would the CS300 be harder to certify? Can it not make the runway with a profitable payload?


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3284 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6722 times:

Ah that makes sense. I know that the plans published had an option to cover the King George V dock and put in a proper nose in parking finger on the South side of the extension. It looked quite impressive and got around the size constraints, indeed I think the reason they lost Stand 11 was spacing out the other ten to wedge in the ER9s properly. Having to taxi off stand and try a second and third attempt to park is not as rare as it once was due to the larger aircraft.

In the best British traditions, the facility is now handing aircraft it was in no way designed or intended for. Dash 7 anyone?


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7710 posts, RR: 21
Reply 25, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6856 times:

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 15):
Another issue is that LCY traditionally had a strong focus on shorter cross-channel routes. These have already disappeared (e.g. BRU) or are under pressure from the High Speed Trains (AMS, RTM, ANR, PAR).

With regard to Paris, why do CityJet only fly to ORY rather than CDG? Surely they miss out on a lot of potential connecting traffic given what a nuisance it is to have to change airports in Paris.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinethijs1984 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 101 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6777 times:

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 15):
Another issue is that LCY traditionally had a strong focus on shorter cross-channel routes. These have already disappeared (e.g. BRU) or are under pressure from the High Speed Trains (AMS, RTM, ANR, PAR).

As for AMS and RTM, those destinations are not affected at all by the high speeds trains due to the simple fact that it takes just to much time to get to the station in Brussels in order to catch the train to London.
And a direct train from AMS via RTM to London is not planned yet. but even still i think to overall travel time by train is much more than traveling by air to LCY.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 27, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6525 times:

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 23):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 20):
Beat me to it ! BBD have stated that the CS100 (but not the CS300) will be certified for LCY 'out of the box' and also for LCY-JFK n/s ETOPS.

Why would the CS300 be harder to certify? Can it not make the runway with a profitable payload?

Basically runway requirements, I believe. LCY runway is about 1,300 m. CS100 needs about 400m less runway than the CS300, as it is around 5,000 kg lighter (from the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_CSeries#Specifications). I note that the runway requirements given actually exceed LCY's runway length at MTOW, however, I don't have any info on the date of the specs given and whether or nor takeoffélanding performance has been improved. So either the CS100 t/o performance has been improved, or it will be certified at a restricted t/o weight.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11667 posts, RR: 60
Reply 28, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6298 times:


MTOW is key, the proposed LCY-JFK flights would essentially trade payload for range off the runway.


Dan  

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 23):
Why would the CS300 be harder to certify? Can it not make the runway with a profitable payload?

Aside of the runway length as mentioned by connies4ever, the aircraft needs to fly the 5.5 degree glideslope and maintain it's approach speed - that could well require additional modifications. On routes
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 27):
I note that the runway requirements given actually exceed LCY's runway length at MTOW, however, I don't have any info on the date of the specs given and whether or nor takeoffélanding performance has been improved.

...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8474 posts, RR: 10
Reply 29, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6258 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 27):
So either the CS100 t/o performance has been improved, or it will be certified at a restricted t/o weight.

But in an all J config (and likely with little luggage underneath), wouldn't the aircraft be well below MTOW?


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 30, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6219 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 29):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 27):
So either the CS100 t/o performance has been improved, or it will be certified at a restricted t/o weight.

But in an all J config (and likely with little luggage underneath), wouldn't the aircraft be well below MTOW?

Should be, I would think. But the full Monty J-class product will be fairly heavy on a per seat basis. Plus the galley kit (real China, for example).

One thing that I have thought about, BA's service clears US customs at SNN, and pax deplane in JFK as domestic arrivals, collect their luggage, and get into their Town Cars (if they can afford the flight, they can afford the limo). A n/s service to JFK would not have pre-cleared, basically negating the time advantage. Unless USCBP was installed right at LCY. Possible ?



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinevfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 4013 posts, RR: 5
Reply 31, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6008 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 18):
It's certainly not peaked, the numbers do not back that up.

What I meant to say is that the traditional market for LCY has sort of peaked, high frequency services to major airports on the continent. Both AF and BA have diversified by adding flights to leisure destinations (AF, BA) and to tertiary markets (AF).

Quoting thijs1984 (Reply 26):
As for AMS and RTM, those destinations are not affected at all by the high speeds trains due to the simple fact that it takes just to much time to get to the station in Brussels in order to catch the train to London.

Deutsche Bahn has announced plans to operate ICE highspeed trains from Amsterdam via Rotterdam and Brussels to London. Travel time from Amsterdam downtowon to London downtown will be 4hrs, from Rotterdam downtown to London downtown 3hrs. They will also offer direct trains from Frankfurt and Cologne, two coupled train sets will split in Brussels to Amsterdam and Frankfurt. Deutsche Bahn has already odered newly build ICE 3 (class 407) trains for those services.

http://www.bahn.com/i/view/GBR/en/about/overview/ice-in-london.shtml

Eurostar has announced similar services to Amsterdam.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/eu...vices-to-Amsterdam-and-Geneva.html

A downtown-downtown travel time of 3 or 4 hours on a comfortable high speed train with working areas, wifi etc. is, imho, competitive to flights from AMS or RTM to LCY. We shall see.


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3284 posts, RR: 1
Reply 32, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5867 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 30):
A n/s service to JFK would not have pre-cleared, basically negating the time advantage.

From a marketing perspective, stopping in Shannon for pre clearance is hardly a competitive advantage. There's no business case for having a US CBP at LCY, not for under a hundred bankers on expenses a day.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25626 posts, RR: 22
Reply 33, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5833 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 30):
One thing that I have thought about, BA's service clears US customs at SNN, and pax deplane in JFK as domestic arrivals

As already mentioned, since October that only applies on the earliest of BA's 2 LCY-JFK flights. On the later flight passengers must clear immigration/customs on arrival at JFK.

[Edited 2013-02-11 13:42:15]

User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11667 posts, RR: 60
Reply 34, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5722 times:

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 31):
A downtown-downtown travel time of 3 or 4 hours on a comfortable high speed train with working areas, wifi etc. is, imho, competitive to flights from AMS or RTM to LCY. We shall see.

I disagree. When it comes to large urban areas, being delivered to a station in the very heart of the city is often a disadvantage. In LCY's case its catchment area is the Docklands (Canary Wharf), East London and beyond, not ideal for reaching the London terminus, unless they plan on stopping ICE trains at Stratford, but I thought that idea had been shelved. Also the frequency is low, there is no doubt the frequent Eurostar is a better alternative to Brussels and Paris, but at three trains a day and likely similar prices you may not find many people switching.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinevfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 4013 posts, RR: 5
Reply 35, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 5600 times:

With Eurostar entering the AMS/RTM-LON market, frequency will be much more competitive.

To give you an example, the Thalys highspeed trains have killed all flights between Cologne and Paris. It involves a similar travel time as AMS-LON. The key, in my experience, is a direct service without the need to change trains. Once that is guaranteed, it becomes really attractive.

The overall travel experience simply is much better because you can work for, say, 3,5 hours of the 4, make calls, have wifi all the time. Air travel is much more divided into small sections, resulting in a lot of wasted time.


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8018 posts, RR: 5
Reply 36, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 5589 times:

In the end, the opening of the High Speed 1 line between Folkestone and London St. Pancras (with a top speed to 186 mph) has pretty much limited the usefulness of LCY. This especially with more and more direct rail service from London St. Pancras to various destinations in continental Europe from Eurostar and soon Deutsche Bahn.

User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3284 posts, RR: 1
Reply 37, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5587 times:

RayChaung have you ever set foot in LCY? To say that, excuse me while I laugh at High Speed 1, will kill p2p busines flying is just comic. I've lived in London seven years and that's still amusing. It's like saying Crossrail will be affordable or the Central Line will quieten down. The bottom line is St Pancras is lovely but the numbers at LCY are still climbing.

It's niche but has some good core routes.


User currently offlinevfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 4013 posts, RR: 5
Reply 38, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5454 times:

I think we are talking about the future while you are talking about the presence. Things will change. At the moment, there are no useful high speed train connections from London other than to Brussels and Paris. In a couple of years, tihs will be different.

Whereever high speed trains have entered the scene, air traffic has suffered. Look at the domestic market in France, look at certain routes within Germany or the LON-PAR/BRU market.


User currently onlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7616 posts, RR: 17
Reply 39, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5220 times:

Quoting AIR MALTA (Reply 1):
ARN is so so as the route is not operating in July and August.

When I was a regular traveller to Sweden the best part of twenty years ago getting around was more problematic in July and August as SK (and at that time Linjeflyg amongst others) operated a significantly reduced service in the summer holiday period. So, unless things have changed, there may not be too much significance in this.

Also note that BA significantly reduce their LCY-SNN-JFK-LCY schedules in August. They only operate BA003/04 on Sundays instead of six days a week. So it is not just Swedish demand for flights to and from LCY that falls significantly at that time of the year.

One of the future developments for LCY is start-up Norwegian airline, FlyNonstop. It is due to start a KRS-LCY service on 23 April. But to me it seems a little ambitious to operate a six-times-a-week flight on this route with the population of Kristiansand only being around 80,000. Recognise that BA CityFlyer failed on the LCY-CPH route where Copenhagen has a population 15 times larger at around 1.2 million. However KRS have one advantage over CPH. It has no direct service to any other LON airport.

Nevertheless FlyNonstop plan to fly a 100 seat E190 on the route. So they will be offering sufficient seats to fly around 40 per cent of the total Kristiansand population to and from LCY every year


User currently offlinehotplane From UK - England, joined Jul 2006, 1124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5114 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting VV701 (Reply 39):
FlyNonstop plan to fly a 100 seat E190 on the route.

With a daily arrival time of 20.15L



?
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11667 posts, RR: 60
Reply 41, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4977 times:

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 35):
The overall travel experience simply is much better because you can work for, say, 3,5 hours of the 4, make calls, have wifi all the time. Air travel is much more divided into small sections, resulting in a lot of wasted time.

That might be your opinion, but it's by no means representative of the market from LCY, which is predominantly business travelers who use the airport because of it's very short check in times and its proximity to the city of London. I know many people who use LCY-AMS, RTM, ORY etc... because they can rely on travelling from office to office/meeting room in 2.5 hours by air. Say they took the train to AMS instead, include the 30 minutes travel/waiting at either end and you have a 10 hour round trip compared to 5 on the plane - that is anything but appealing to the traveler LCY caters for and, considering growth, is not going to make a dent on these markets. The only potential I see for a reduction in traffic is from time insensitive travelers on lower yielding routes into LTN/STN or LGW, especially if the train is competitive on price.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 38):
Whereever high speed trains have entered the scene, air traffic has suffered. Look at the domestic market in France, look at certain routes within Germany or the LON-PAR/BRU market.

As these networks illustrate, there is a cut off point of around 3 hours, exceed this travel time and rail's attractiveness decreases significantly. There is also the obvious fact that the UK is an island, and that does make a big difference to travel habits - i.e. driving is not favorable.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 38):

I think we are talking about the future while you are talking about the presence. Things will change.

The only thing which will change is that LCY's throughput will keep increasing. In addition to the present, there are enough upcoming and growing markets available to LCY to keep them in growth until they are at capacity.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinethijs1984 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 101 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4913 times:

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 35):
With Eurostar entering the AMS/RTM-LON market, frequency will be much more competitive.

Where did you get this info? As far as i know there will be no direct train by Eurostar from AMS via RTM to LON for the comming years.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 43, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4773 times:

Addition to my Reply 20 in this thread, I'd shocked if Privat Air/Odyssey didn't investigate LCY to ME destinations (JED/RUH/DHA/DOH/KWI come to mind). There could be a decent business for those travelling J who don't want to mix with the plebes.


Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3284 posts, RR: 1
Reply 44, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4559 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 43):
Addition to my Reply 20 in this thread, I'd shocked if Privat Air/Odyssey didn't investigate LCY to ME destinations (JED/RUH/DHA/DOH/KWI come to mind). There could be a decent business for those travelling J who don't want to mix with the plebes.

I think they would be swamped by being way too close to LHR, there is no proper premium lounge facility at LCY, nor are there plans to introduce any. The BA long haul operation is very niche connecting two financial centres in Canary Wharf and NYC. The same business driver does not exist for points East. Lets face it, BA, Saudia, QR and KU do it way better from LHR with the full First Class treatment and premier lounge facilities. It would be like Maxjet and Silverjet al over again. I wonder just how many of you guys have ever clapped eyes on LCY as you're describing an airport and a market I barely recognise and I live a stones throw away.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11667 posts, RR: 60
Reply 45, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4551 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 44):
I wonder just how many of you guys have ever clapped eyes on LCY as you're describing an airport and a market I barely recognise and I live a stones throw away.

Hardly the same distance as the ME, but I can certainly see MOW being launched in the future.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinegreenair727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 590 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4369 times:

Quote:
The reduced USCBP work hours have been in effect from the beginning of the winter season (end of October) and flight BA3 still operates as normal. I don't know if passengers are still made disembark at SNN or not (presumably not as it is solely a refuelling stop now). The stopover time is shorter than BA1 though for obvious reasons.

Does this mean that ONE flight from SNN enters the US on the cleared side, while the second one (which arrives/leaves SNN after the US customs is closed) enters the US like a regular international (not pre-cleared) flight? If so, it must be confusing on the US side to know which aircraft must be cleared and which need not be, as it wouldn't be based on the port of departure, rather the port and time of departure.


User currently offlinevfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 4013 posts, RR: 5
Reply 47, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4280 times:

Just noted on the LCY website that they are listing the new Kristiansand service as "Kjevik KRS". I guess a lot of people have no idea where Kristiansand is, but I am sure that nobody outside the immediate vicinty of Kristiansand knows what or where "Kjevik" is. Maybe they are using "Kjevik" to avoid mix-ups with Kristianstad in Sweden, but from a marketing point of view they are certainly not helping the route.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 41):
I know many people who use LCY-AMS, RTM, ORY etc... because they can rely on travelling from office to office/meeting room in 2.5 hours by air. Say they took the train to AMS instead, include the 30 minutes travel/waiting at either end and you have a 10 hour round trip compared to 5 on the plane - that is anything but appealing to the traveler LCY caters for and, considering growth, is not going to make a dent on these markets.

Well, everyone is entitled to his/her opinion  

As far as I see it, LCY has always had a stronger focus on inbound traffic than on outbound traffic and this is their main customer base - not so much the Canary Wharf suits you are describing and know (Canary Wharf has 100.000 employees which can hardly keep an airport with 3m pax a year alive on their own). And people traveling inbound are not going from a workplace at Canary Wharf to an airport lounge at AMS, but from an office miles away from the departure airport to a place somewhere in Central or East London. That said, they will never make it in 2.5 hours door to door by flying into/out of LCY - going from their departure point to Schiphol, clear check-in and immigration, walk to the departure gate, taxi to the Polderbaan, be in flight etc. The story is a little bit different at smaller airports such as RTM or ANR; but these have already seen a reduction of LCY flights - I remember times when RTM had 11 or 12 daily depatures to LCY whereas now it has 7. ANR used to have 7, they now have a max. of five.

I am not saying that HSR will wipe out all these routes, but it will have an impact.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 48, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4150 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 44):
Lets face it, BA, Saudia, QR and KU do it way better from LHR with the full First Class treatment and premier lounge facilities. It would be like Maxjet and Silverjet al over again. I wonder just how many of you guys have ever clapped eyes on LCY as you're describing an airport and a market I barely recognise and I live a stones throw away.

No doubt the above firms out of LHR can offer a superior service than what can be done from LCY, but I'm talking about J, not F. Given the differential in fares, easier to justify to management, as well as logistically since close to Canary Wharf.

Have clapped eyes on LCY -- on approach to LHR...Quite a different look from when I lived in London in the 70s !



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinebongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3634 posts, RR: 3
Reply 49, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3997 times:

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 36):
In the end, the opening of the High Speed 1 line between Folkestone and London St. Pancras (with a top speed to 186 mph) has pretty much limited the usefulness of LCY. This especially with more and more direct rail service from London St. Pancras to various destinations in continental Europe from Eurostar and soon Deutsche Bahn.

Do you realise the journey time from Canary Wharf to St Pancras to catch Eurostar ? By the time a financier has reached the concourse at St Pancras, his colleague who is flying is already in the air.

As to the various destinations in Europe, have any in addition to Paris and Brussels ever been announced ?


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11667 posts, RR: 60
Reply 50, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3989 times:

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 47):
As far as I see it, LCY has always had a stronger focus on inbound traffic than on outbound traffic and this is their main customer base - not so much the Canary Wharf suits you are describing and know (Canary Wharf has 100.000 employees which can hardly keep an airport with 3m pax a year alive on their own).

LCY was essentially built to serve the London businessman, not just Canary Wharf, and it is still their main source of traffic.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 47):
And people traveling inbound are not going from a workplace at Canary Wharf to an airport lounge at AMS, but from an office miles away from the departure airport to a place somewhere in Central or East London. That said, they will never make it in 2.5 hours door to door by flying into/out of LCY - going from their departure point to Schiphol, clear check-in and immigration, walk to the departure gate, taxi to the Polderbaan, be in flight etc.

I'm afraid they do - I've made similar trips myself. Consider this; depart to DLR station around 45 mins before the flight leaves, the walk takes about 5 mins and the DLR takes less than 15 mins to reach LCY - the minimum check in time of 15 mins can be fully used but you still have time to spare in case you miss the first DLR. Flight is under an hour but, in the case of AMS, you do indeed sometimes have the long taxi from the Polderbaan, so allow 1h 15 block. No bags to claim so straight out through the airport and within half an hour of touch down you can be a surprisingly long way from AMS by car. When returning you don't have the luxury of a short check in at AMS, but with online check in you can cut it down, and when arriving at LCY there is no waiting - going from plane seat to DLR in five mins is common, although my best is just three - and having a coffee with friends in central London barely 25 minutes later.

That's why I love LCY so much; it cuts the waiting around out of travelling.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinevfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 4013 posts, RR: 5
Reply 51, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3906 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 50):
LCY was essentially built to serve the London businessman, not just Canary Wharf, and it is still their main source of traffic.

It may have been built for that pupose, but in reality it is not. In the 2011 CAA consultation paper, the inbound/outbound ratio is given at 50:50. As in 2005 it was 51:49, this suggests that outbound business travel has actually decreased because over the past couple of years BA and AF have added a lot of leisure-oriented routes that did not exisit in 2005 and that almost exclusively cater for outbound travel. Business pax have a 63 per cent share at LCY, so it is easy to figure out that the main source of traffic are not London businessman. They probably account for a third of all passengers, if at all.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 50):
I'm afraid they do - I've made similar trips myself. Consider this; depart to DLR station around 45 mins before the flight leaves, the walk takes about 5 mins and the DLR takes less than 15 mins to reach LCY - the minimum check in time of 15 mins can be fully used but you still have time to spare in case you miss the first DLR. Flight is under an hour but, in the case of AMS, you do indeed sometimes have the long taxi from the Polderbaan, so allow 1h 15 block. No bags to claim so straight out through the airport and within half an hour of touch down you can be a surprisingly long way from AMS by car. When returning you don't have the luxury of a short check in at AMS, but with online check in you can cut it down, and when arriving at LCY there is no waiting - going from plane seat to DLR in five mins is common, although my best is just three - and having a coffee with friends in central London barely 25 minutes later.

Well, I have used LCY myself countless times. I have flown into LCY from big airports like FRA, ZRH, BRU, AMS, DUS or EDI and from smallish ones like MGL, DTM, LPL or IOM. I never got from a central downtown location at any of these cities to a place in central London in 150 minutes assuming a flight time of 60 minutes.

Don't misunderstand me, I have been using LCY since the mid-1990s whenever possible. I like the place. But I think you are really cherry-picking here by looking at a certain niche-market, people working at Canary Wharf going to a place near AMS airport. I have travelled AMS-LCY a couple of times and getting from downtown Amsterdam to buckling up in your seat on the plane in 60min is not very realistic, to say the least.


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3284 posts, RR: 1
Reply 52, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3896 times:

How do you get from 50/50 to 63%?

User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11667 posts, RR: 60
Reply 53, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3873 times:

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 51):
In the 2011 CAA consultation paper, the inbound/outbound ratio is given at 50:50.

Which contradicts your statement that LCY has always had a stronger focus on inbound traffic than outbound.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 51):
Business pax have a 63 per cent share at LCY, so it is easy to figure out that the main source of traffic are not London businessman.

So, by your own figures, identify another source which generates more than 50% of 63%. It's simple - there isn't one, just because it's not over 50% doesn't mean it isn't the primary source of traffic.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 51):
But I think you are really cherry-picking here by looking at a certain niche-market, people working at Canary Wharf going to a place near AMS airport.

Not cherry picking at all - the East of London is the primary market for LCY, so not niche either. Really we could be having this discussion about the train taking over from the plane in relation to any London airport, but the debate is focused on LCY and therefore also needs to take into account it's specifics.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinevfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 4013 posts, RR: 5
Reply 54, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3823 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 52):
How do you get from 50/50 to 63%

50 per cent traffic is inbound (=non-Londoners), 50 per is outbound (= Londoners).

Overall business share is 63 per cent. This means that 37 per cent of the traffic at LCY is leisure/VFR (at LHR, it is almost exactly the other way around).

So, if we assume that the 63 per cent business travel is evenly distributed among inbound and outbound travel, it means that the breakdown is:

31,5 per cent outbound business
18,5 per cent outbound non-business (leisure, VFR etc.)
31,5 per cent inbound business
18,5 per cent inbound non-business (leisure, VFR etc.)

Now, given that the leisure oriented routes by BA and AF (those off-peaks flights to regional airports in France, Spain etc.) are almost exclusively catering for outbound passengers, the ratio for outbound traffic will shift towards more leisure oriented traffic. Not massively so because of the relatively low frequencies, but let us assume it is 60 : 40 rather than 63 : 37. So overall it is most likely like this:

30,0 per cent outbound business travel
20,0 per cent outbound non-business travel (leisure, VFR etc.)
33,0 per cent inbound business travel
17,0 per cent inbound non-business travel (leisure, VFR etc.)

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 53):

So, by your own figures, identify another source which generates more than 50% of 63%. It's simple - there isn't one, just because it's not over 50% doesn't mean it isn't the primary source of traffic.

See above.

If 30 per cent of all LCY passengers are London businessmen on outbound travel, to say"LCY was essentially built to serve the London businessman" may be correct, but does not reflect how it has turned out to be. In fact, 70 per cent of all passengers at LCY are not London businessmen. I am happy to admit, however, that things have changed in favour of outbound travel more recently. Ten years ago, you could always get the cheapest ticket on morning travel outbound of LCY - I remember VLM flights that regularly arrived full to the brim from the continent, while I flew on the return sector with less than 10 passengers on board. This has changed somewhat.

Generally speaking, the business aspect of LCY is slightly overhyped. For London businessmen, LCY is not necessarily useful if business travel starts from home as research has shown that businesspeople tend to live rather in the (north)western parts of London (= closer to LHR) than in the (south)eastern parts. Compared to LHR, LCY is attractive if travel starts from the office in the City or Canary Wharf, but that is not all business travel (I don't think that most day trips on business to the continent begin AND end in the office).

[Edited 2013-02-13 07:09:35]

User currently offlineteme82 From Finland, joined Mar 2007, 1566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3779 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

What I would like to see is HEL-LCY route operated for AY by FlyBe Nordic  


Flying high and low
User currently offlineseansasLCY From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2007, 871 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3755 times:

Quoting teme82 (Reply 55):
What I would like to see is HEL-LCY route operated for AY by FlyBe Nordic

I would love this service. We came close to a TLL service but was cancelled before it began.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11667 posts, RR: 60
Reply 57, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3723 times:

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 54):
See above.

If 30 per cent of all LCY passengers are London businessmen on outbound travel, to say"LCY was essentially built to serve the London businessman" may be correct, but does not reflect how it has turned out to be. In fact, 70 per cent of all passengers at LCY are not London businessmen.

That is why I clarified it by saying it is still their main source of traffic - which it is, indisputably I thought. Non London (business or otherwise) is not a single source, it is a collection of traffic sources which can be broken down into as many fractions as you want ranging from EU/Non EU to individual countries, depending on how you categorise it.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 54):
Generally speaking, the business aspect of LCY is slightly overhyped.

Having commissioned detailed research on this subject, I would respectfully disagree.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 54):
I am happy to admit, however, that things have changed in favour of outbound travel more recently.

This is perhaps partly due to LCY's pricing structure which weighs more against arriving passengers than those departing.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3284 posts, RR: 1
Reply 58, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3700 times:

Quoting teme82 (Reply 55):
AY by FlyBe Nordic

flybe got badly burned at LCY in their pre loco days as Jersey European. Not if how HEL would fare any better than CPH, though there would be feed to more long haul.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 54):

Generally speaking, the business aspect of LCY is slightly overhyped.

Perhaps we just have the smartest dressed leisure travellers I have ever seen....
It's suit city most days come on, I think we're arguing for arguing's sake now.


User currently offlinebongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3634 posts, RR: 3
Reply 59, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3663 times:

With regard to outbound/inbound traffic, LCY probably does have a bias towards inbound for the reason that most business travellers flying out of the UK will probably go directly from home to the airport if they are heading to Europe for a day or two. Thus they will probably choose a London airport most convenient for where they live. Inbound passengers however will be most likely to be heading directly to a meeting, so LCY with its proximity to the financial districts is ideal. Likewise on departure the airport nearest their meeting place is the favourite.

User currently onlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7616 posts, RR: 17
Reply 60, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3651 times:

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 31):
What I meant to say is that the traditional market for LCY has sort of peaked, high frequency services to major airports on the continent. Both AF and BA have diversified by adding flights to leisure destinations (AF, BA) and to tertiary markets (AF).

I gained the impression that, at least in the case of BA, the leisure destination flights had been added to improve aircraft utilisation. Few if any of these leisure destination services are operated daily. I thought that they were operated on days and at times when otherwise the aircraft would be idle. For example there is a Friday morning LCY-IBZ-LCY rotation that is completed by lunchtime ready for the Friday afternoon and evening homeward flights of business passengers.

PMI is served 3 x weekly, AGP 4 x weekly and IBZ 5 x weekly. I would not have thought that the addition of these twelve rotations to leisure destinations would significantly alter the balance between the numbers of leisure and business travellers. For example there are more than 40 BA weekly rotations to EDI, almost 30 weekly rotations to both AMS and GLA and over 20 weekly rotations to ZRH.

I believe while adding a small number of flights to leisure destinations BA have added a greater number of flights to their traditional business destinations. Recognise here that the total number of passengers using LCY increased from 2.781 million by 7.6 per cent to 2.993 million in 2011. And I doubt that the total number of passengers flying between LCY and all of the leisure destinations served approached this increase of over 200,000. Indeed the number of passengers flying between LCY and AGP and PMI in 2011 were only 15,339 and 16,802 respectively. Compare these numbers with the growth in passengers flying between LCY and EDI from 334,709 in 2010 to 344,868 in 2011.

Yes. Many new destinations from LCY are leisure destinations. But relatively few flights from LCY serve leisure destinations.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11667 posts, RR: 60
Reply 61, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3640 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 60):
I gained the impression that, at least in the case of BA, the leisure destination flights had been added to improve aircraft utilisation.

  

Essentially it allows a morning rotation to somewhere like EDI/AMS, then a rotation to somewhere like PMI, followed by another two rotations to EDI/AMS or similar - if not more. Very clever way of utilising the quite travel period during the middle of the day.


Dan  

[Edited 2013-02-13 09:36:13]


...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineseansasLCY From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2007, 871 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3614 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 60):
IBZ 5 x weekly.

In the summer (at least the week I checked in July) there are 11 weekly flights to IBZ from LCY with BA. The route must be doing ok.


User currently offlineAmricanShamrok From Ireland, joined May 2008, 2930 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3604 times:

Quoting greenair727 (Reply 46):
Does this mean that ONE flight from SNN enters the US on the cleared side, while the second one (which arrives/leaves SNN after the US customs is closed) enters the US like a regular international (not pre-cleared) flight?

Correct. Also, if flight BA1 has to divert to an alternative airport before reaching the US (as with all precleared flights) the flight's "precleared" status is cancelled and passengers would have to re-clear on arrival.



Shannon-Chicago
User currently offlineteme82 From Finland, joined Mar 2007, 1566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3533 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 58):

flybe got badly burned at LCY in their pre loco days as Jersey European. Not if how HEL would fare any better than CPH, though there would be feed to more long haul.

Well they are just the operator for AY. What I've seen majority of AY's LHR pax are business people for the city. So I would think that one daily LCY fligt with E190 would fill up nicely.



Flying high and low
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3284 posts, RR: 1
Reply 65, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3441 times:

Quoting teme82 (Reply 64):
So I would think that one daily LCY fligt with E190 would fill up nicely.

You'd need two, a morning arrival and an evening departure coupled with the morning flight out of LCY feeding long haul.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11667 posts, RR: 60
Reply 66, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3408 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 65):
You'd need two, a morning arrival and an evening departure coupled with the morning flight out of LCY feeding long haul.

  

But LCY-HEL would be really pushing it for range year around, on either the 170 or 190 - you would be blocking seats on many days.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinegreenair727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 590 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3264 times:

Quoting AmericanShamrock:
Correct. Also, if flight BA1 has to divert to an alternative airport before reaching the US (as with all precleared flights) the flight's "precleared" status is cancelled and passengers would have to re-clear on arrival.

Interesting. Why is re-clearing required in the event of a diversion?


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25626 posts, RR: 22
Reply 68, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3213 times:

Quoting greenair727 (Reply 46):
Does this mean that ONE flight from SNN enters the US on the cleared side, while the second one (which arrives/leaves SNN after the US customs is closed) enters the US like a regular international (not pre-cleared) flight?

Correct. See Reply 19. Since last October 31, only the earliest flight is pre-cleared during the SNN stop.


User currently offlineteme82 From Finland, joined Mar 2007, 1566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3179 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 66):
But LCY-HEL would be really pushing it for range year around, on either the 170 or 190 - you would be blocking seats on many days.

I would assume that to be only LCY-HEL issue.



Flying high and low
User currently offlinethijs1984 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 101 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3111 times:

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 47):
I remember times when RTM had 11 or 12 daily depatures to LCY whereas now it has 7.

And some of those flights then were operated bij the VG Bae146.
But the decreased number of flights is more due to the current low demand for business travel rather than the highspeed railway links which are not e realisitic alternative when traveling from Rotterdam to downtown London.


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3284 posts, RR: 1
Reply 71, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3094 times:

Quoting teme82 (Reply 69):
I would assume that to be only LCY-HEL issue.

Think about it! Not much point in taking people from A to B of you have no way of getting them back now is there?

Quoting thijs1984 (Reply 70):
I remember times when RTM had 11 or 12 daily depatures to LCY whereas now it has 7.

BA entered the market thrice daily from LHR and so a fair amount of Exec Club members now have a chance to gain points and lounge access in T1.


User currently offlineteme82 From Finland, joined Mar 2007, 1566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3068 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 71):
Think about it! Not much point in taking people from A to B of you have no way of getting them back now is there?

Yeah. Didn't need much brain work to come the same conclusion. E-170 would be the only plane that could do the flights with smallest penalty ...



Flying high and low
User currently offlinevfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 4013 posts, RR: 5
Reply 73, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2949 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 71):
BA entered the market thrice daily from LHR and so a fair amount of Exec Club members now have a chance to gain points and lounge access in T1.

I was talking about a time when KLM was still serving LHR (until 2008). For some time, KLM was serving RTM-LCY in addition to RTM-LHR. And of course there was the long-running BA service to Gatwick, operated by Cityflyer, and later a Transavia service to LTN/LGW. So the RTM-LON has shrunk considerably. The BA service to LHR is more or less "just" a partial reinstatement of capacity withdrawn in previous years, although of course a prestigious link as it is operated into LHR by BA mainline (rather than subsidiaries or franchises as in the past).


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8018 posts, RR: 5
Reply 74, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2919 times:

I think in the end, the relatively short runway at LCY--not to mention the potentially enormous cost of extending that runway--will limit the usefulness of that airport. Remember, Eurostar trains are technically capable of running beyond Paris and Brussels, and I expect within a few years plans to expand Eurostar service from London all the way into Rotterdam and Amsterdam. Also, Deutsche Bahn has announced ICE service through the Channel Tunnel into London, which means several German cities will now be directly connected to London by rail.

Once expanded rail service through the Channel Tunnel happens, that will substantially cut into the market for LCY, in my humble opinion.


User currently offlinevfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 4013 posts, RR: 5
Reply 75, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2902 times:

Don't get PlymSpotter/Dan started again  

User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3284 posts, RR: 1
Reply 76, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2882 times:

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 74):
Once expanded rail service through the Channel Tunnel happens, that will substantially cut into the market for LCY, in my humble opinion.

1) Have you ever been to LCY?
2) Have you ever used railways in the UK?

Of course it's limited, it's always been limited. Limited to Dash 7s, then 146s, now limited to A318s with a limit to one stop transatlantic.

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 74):
ot to mention the potentially enormous cost of extending that runway

There is no cost to extending the runway as it's really not about to happen, it's quite pysically limited and operating at the maximum length I think we will ever see. You'd need to close the King George V dock permanently to extend the runway and cut the Excel off from the river, failing that exend towards the Excel and move the road bridge. Either way I suspect we're operating at the limits of noise tolerance, the ERJ190s are not quiet that close up.

If there was a strategy you could close LCY as a part of giving Runway 3 to LHR. Sell it as being green and environmental, close one runway for opening another more useful one. There's a policy for you  
Quoting RayChuang (Reply 74):
hich means several German cities will now be directly connected to London by rail.

Will the UK Border check be in Germany? There have major issues with people getting on in France and "forgetting" to get off in Paris and getting into the UK.


User currently offlinethijs1984 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 101 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2861 times:

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 74):
Remember, Eurostar trains are technically capable of running beyond Paris and Brussels, and I expect within a few years plans to expand Eurostar service from London all the way into Rotterdam and Amsterdam.

The Eurostar trains are not yet capable of running on the line Brussels-Antwerp-Rotterdam-Amsterdam due to a diffrent safety system whic is used on this railway link.
And the consession for the Dutch part of the line is in hands of 1 party only and i doubt if they will allow any other parties to use the line. There are still many issues which need to be solved before the Eurostar trains can run all the way to Rotterdam and Amsterdam. My guess is it will take at least 5 years or even not in this decade.
I Think the eurotunnel is also close to it's maximum capacity anyway? Or am i wrong?


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11667 posts, RR: 60
Reply 78, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2862 times:

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 75):
Don't get PlymSpotter/Dan started again  

Hehe  
Quoting RayChuang (Reply 74):

I think in the end, the relatively short runway at LCY--not to mention the potentially enormous cost of extending that runway--will limit the usefulness of that airport.

The 'usefulness' is actually increasing all the time. LCY is at the very limit (technically beyond it, but that's another story!) for Code 2 airports - following the rule book you can't promulgate declared distances above 1,199m without widening the clearway to 300m, which is not feasible at the vast majority of such airfields. So this means manufacturers need to design within these limits if they want to enable operation into places like LCY, and there has been a big increase in such types recently.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 76):
There is no cost to extending the runway as it's really not about to happen, it's quite pysically limited and operating at the maximum length I think we will ever see. You'd need to close the King George V dock permanently to extend the runway and cut the Excel off from the river, failing that exend towards the Excel and move the road bridge. Either way I suspect we're operating at the limits of noise tolerance, the ERJ190s are not quiet that close up.

  
It is impossible for literally every reason in the book.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4299 posts, RR: 1
Reply 79, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2858 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 44):
I think they would be swamped by being way too close to LHR, there is no proper premium lounge facility at LCY, nor are there plans to introduce any. The BA long haul operation is very niche connecting two financial centres in Canary Wharf and NYC. The same business driver does not exist for points East. Lets face it, BA, Saudia, QR and KU do it way better from LHR with the full First Class treatment and premier lounge facilities. It would be like Maxjet and Silverjet al over again. I wonder just how many of you guys have ever clapped eyes on LCY as you're describing an airport and a market I barely recognise and I live a stones throw away.

The only expansion I can see is the terminal facilities. Like having a proper lounge. I have flown through LCY just to experience it and found that although it is a nice place to arrive, I would not want to have to spend time in transit there. It really is a pain to get to and from, unless you are going to the Canary Warf and London Business areas.

Quoting AmricanShamrok (Reply 63):
Correct. Also, if flight BA1 has to divert to an alternative airport before reaching the US (as with all precleared flights) the flight's "precleared" status is cancelled and passengers would have to re-clear on arrival.

I guess that is because the diversion airports are not in the US?



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8474 posts, RR: 10
Reply 80, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2850 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 61):
Essentially it allows a morning rotation to somewhere like EDI/AMS, then a rotation to somewhere like PMI, followed by another two rotations to EDI/AMS or similar - if not more. Very clever way of utilising the quite travel period during the middle of the day.

But in order to operate those rotations there has to be demand right? They wouldn't operate the flight at a loss just for the sake of utilization.


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3284 posts, RR: 1
Reply 81, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2826 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 80):
But in order to operate those rotations there has to be demand right? They wouldn't operate the flight at a loss just for the sake of utilization.

They do rather well I believe, it's an Ibiza trip Jim but not as we know it  


User currently offlinerutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 3016 posts, RR: 7
Reply 82, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2822 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 74):
Eurostar trains are technically capable of running beyond Paris and Brussels, and I expect within a few years plans to expand Eurostar service from London all the way into Rotterdam and Amsterdam

There are only 5 Current Eurostar trainsets capable of running of 1.5KV DC power as found in the Netherlands however are not certified to run on the high speed line as they don't comply with dutch signalling equipment.

They can operate within France on all TGV lines and several do so during the ski season .
Some also operate on domestic French Nord du Calais TGV services to Lille.

The proposed Eurostar/ICE fleet will be made up of Seimens Velaro e320 trains and will have the ability to run on 3 KV DC lines across Belgium in addition to 25KV AC in the UK/France/Germany and the Netherlands Zuid High Speed Line.
(25Kv AC has be extended in Southern Amsterdam or trains will have to terminate at Schipol due to further voltage changes
(The Dutch NS voltage is 1.5 KV DC !)

Its just possible the e320 may be triple voltage but I have not seen mention of 1.5KV DC compatibility (Some current ICE models are 25KV AC/ 1.KV DC for German/Dutch running)

Even with the e320 journey times to Cologne and Amsterdam will remain in excess of the 3 hour threshold where ground travel has the advantage of air.

Oh that electrification were standardised across the EU but its not

All just for information as a number of subscribers on these forums get a little upset at discussing trains !


User currently offlineoffloaded From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2009, 889 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2790 times:

Quoting AIR MALTA (Reply 1):
ARN is so so as the route is not operating in July and August. Bucket and Spade have flourished.

This probably explains why we are getting our FAO service back for end Jul and Aug. It was a shame to lose LCY year round as it was a good seller for us, but apparently not lucrative enough for BA.

I had the pleasure of flying BA1 a couple of years ago, but getting there from LGW on 1 train and 2 tube changes with a suitcase was a bit challenging.



To no one will we sell, or deny, or delay, right or justice - Magna Carta, 1215
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3284 posts, RR: 1
Reply 84, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2767 times:

Quoting offloaded (Reply 83):
I had the pleasure of flying BA1 a couple of years ago, but getting there from LGW on 1 train and 2 tube changes with a suitcase was a bit challenging.

Train to London Bridge, Jubilee Line to Canning Town DLR to the airport   That's London.
I am surprised ARN is still around given CPH was dropped. I think CFE have tried all they can try really, anything else is just cannibalising LHR, something not so encouraged since BMI was bought out.The whole reason GLA was brought back was to free up LHR slots for long haul as the route had failed with both CB and BRT in the past.


User currently offlineseansasLCY From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2007, 871 posts, RR: 0
Reply 85, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2754 times:

Does anybody know the average load factor needed for any of these BA routes to break even?

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 84):
I am surprised ARN is still around given CPH was dropped. I think CFE have tried all they can try really, anything else is just cannibalising LHR

ARN seems to do well I think. Tickets are usually more from LCY and flights have had good load factors when I've traveled.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11667 posts, RR: 60
Reply 86, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2743 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 80):
But in order to operate those rotations there has to be demand right? They wouldn't operate the flight at a loss just for the sake of utilization.

There is good demand - essentially the routes BACF operate are to destinations where many city workers have second homes and/or holiday.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
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...
Will The A318 Be Certified For London City Airport posted Fri Sep 9 2005 22:08:19 by EI321
London City Airport Ramp Space? posted Thu Dec 6 2012 04:53:18 by KaiTak747
Could London City Airport Ever Get Air Bridges? posted Wed Mar 14 2012 09:07:39 by SKAirbus
London City Airport Question? posted Fri Sep 30 2011 17:02:34 by wnflyguy
Great News For Capital City Airport (LAN) posted Sun Sep 16 2007 05:23:19 by JetBlueGuy2006
American Led Group Buys London City Airport posted Fri Oct 13 2006 21:57:00 by Columbia107
20 Year Master Plan For Capital City Airport (LAN) posted Thu Feb 9 2006 19:36:01 by KarlB737
What's The Future Hold For Sheffield City Airport posted Sun Jan 1 2006 23:55:25 by Gilesdavies
London City Airport & The North Sea Storm Surge posted Fri Oct 28 2005 02:03:50 by Timmytour
ERJ-135 Gets OK For London-City Commercial Ops. posted Wed Oct 8 2003 23:34:40 by Teahan