Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
IAG Threaten To Move To LGW In LHR Fee Spat.  
User currently offlineTC957 From UK - England, joined May 2012, 852 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 13382 times:

http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/Articl...k+switch+in+heathrow+fees+row.html

Hmmm....about time airlines made a stance against LHR's ever-increasing fees.

33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRIXrat From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 788 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 13295 times:

I read the article three times, but nowhere do I see Walsh threatening to move BA flights to LGW. The headline should have a backup quote if such a move is contemplated.

[Edited 2013-04-22 01:32:00]

User currently offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1709 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 13184 times:

Quoting RIXrat (Reply 1):
I read the article three times, but nowhere do I see Walsh threatening to move BA flights to LGW. The headline should have a backup quote if such a move is contemplated.

"He (Willie Walsh) warned that subsidiary British Airways would have little flexibility but to move flights to Gatwick if the increases were agreed at Heathrow".

Try reading it again...



Next Flights: LHR-OSL (319-BA), OSL-LHR (319-BA), LHR-IAH (744-BA), MSY-LGA (319-DL), JFK-LHR (744-BA)
User currently offlineIndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2957 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 13135 times:

I can't see them moving too many flights, given the value of slots at LHR and the fact it is their main hub.

Moving some lower yield destinations might be on the cards but its mainly going to be a threat that goes nowhere fast. BA have far too much invested in their LHR ops to move too many flights.


User currently offlineEagleboy From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 13031 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 2):
"He (Willie Walsh) warned that subsidiary British Airways would have little flexibility but to move flights to Gatwick if the increases were agreed at Heathrow".
Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 3):
Moving some lower yield destinations might be on the cards but its mainly going to be a threat that goes nowhere fast. BA have far too much invested in their LHR ops to move too many flights.

Brilliant, so T5 will be up for rent then Willie?
Not to mention that LGW with its single runway may be a bit tight for IAG to move BA ops to there.....


User currently onlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3238 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 12957 times:

It's hot air. If BA move out flights they need to surrender slots to Emirates, Qatar, Delta, United etc. There's only so many slots you can sell to Oneworld partners. LHR wouldn't mind too much if BA moves out x flights as they'd have x+y airlines fighting to get them!

User currently offlineatcsundevil From Germany, joined Mar 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 12781 times:

I believe this is from chapter four of Michael O'Leary's guide to running an airline. It's sort of like a self-help book in that you can't really help yourself when yourself sucks, but I suppose it doesn't hurt to try. MOL has proved his threats should sometimes be taken seriously, but this threat is fairly laughable. I could see SOME flights being moved to free-up slots to be replaced by more lucrative routes, but that's it.


1954 1974 1990 2014 -- Los geht's!
User currently offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1709 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 12781 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 5):
It's hot air. If BA move out flights they need to surrender slots to Emirates, Qatar, Delta, United etc. There's only so many slots you can sell to Oneworld partners. LHR wouldn't mind too much if BA moves out x flights as they'd have x+y airlines fighting to get them!

It's true. I think in order to fight the fee increases there needs to be some kind of united front against BAA, with all airlines submitting a joint complaint.



Next Flights: LHR-OSL (319-BA), OSL-LHR (319-BA), LHR-IAH (744-BA), MSY-LGA (319-DL), JFK-LHR (744-BA)
User currently offlineLHRFlyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2010, 815 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 12719 times:

Indeed. It's the same as IAG saying they'll grow Madrid at the expense of Heathrow if the latter doesn't expand. If there's a market for a direct flight from Heathrow IAG/BA will serve it. Though I can understand the frustration that every one makes money out of air travel apart from the airlines.

User currently offlinecornishsimon From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2013, 108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 12588 times:

WW is just doing what he's good at !

However, what you might see eventually is some of the slot sitting routes at LHR moving down the road to LGW, or some of the rotations, to free up more LHR slots for BA Longhaul expansion at LHR.

For instance, extra GIB flights were recently added at LHR, some of these might well head back to LGW, leaving daily LHR-GIB but the other GIB flights down to LGW

Certain routes like LBA, RTM etc would seem to be sitting slots at LHR, however if they do prove popular you might see a gradual reduction in the daily rotations and them replaced with Longhaul routes @ LHR, however theres nothing to say that LGW couldnt add domestic and shorthaul rotations to ease things.

LBA & RTM are both 3 daily into LHR, i can see that BA might keep twice daily on each, but the 3rd could be moved to allow expansion at LHR, either that or binned totally.

Your never going to see BA move vast amounts of routes to LGW from LHR, however some routes could well move back to LGW over the coming years, some shorthaul are a good fit at Gatwick, some Longhaul can work at LGW along side the same routes at LHR, LAS is a good example of this



cs


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4906 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 12274 times:

I am yet to read the article and been             & EK is moving to Sharjah International Airport in DXB fee spat!

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineBthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 506 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 12061 times:

I can see them moving some lower yield routes to LGW if it won't impact the loads too much.

Quick query though: If an airline has the slots - does it have to use them? Is there a minimum amount of movements it has to make to keep the slot? I know they're expensive to hold, but if the difference in fees between LHR and LGW covered the slot cost at LGW, could BA keep the LHR slots and have a bit of slack in their operations?


User currently offlineEagleboy From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 11807 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Bthebest (Reply 11):
Quick query though: If an airline has the slots - does it have to use them? Is there a minimum amount of movements it has to make to keep the slot?

Yes......its use them or lose them. Not sure what the actual number is. But I do know that several years ago 1 airline used 1 slot pair in Winter only (October-March) in order to hold onto it.


User currently offlinegilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3014 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 11700 times:

Heathrow have BA bent over a barrel and are free to rape them at any time they like, as they know this will never happen and there is no other alternative airport in the London area capable of handling all of their ops in the UK!

The same must be said for other major European operators like KLM and Lufthansa whose bases are very focussed on one super hub airport and the operators of their airports doing something similar.

LGW does not have enough slots to allow BA to move all operations there, and if they were to move some operations to they would be extremely limited in which ones they can move.

Many long haul travellers have little interest in wanting to fly to LGW and want to fly to LHR as this is what they consider to be "London's" airport. This has been demonstrated by the US airlines, who jumped at the chance of moving ops from LGW to LHR...

If they were to move European Ops, easyJet will be there and waiting ready to steal even more customers away from BA, flying head to head from exactly the same London airports!

Then you also have the aspect of lower yields out of London's other airports, and even with LHR's increase in fees, I guarantee they will still make more money flying from there!

The only routes that are likely to be moved to LGW are possibly the routes which are nearly wholly O&D routes that have very limited number of passengers transferring on to other BA flights and the Leisure market routes, which I think are already flown mainly from Gatwick.

I just hope the CAA see sense here and enact their regulatory powers to stop these kind of increases... I do also wonder if LHR are using the 6% increase as a bargaining chip, knowing full well this increase will never be allowed and that the increase the CAA will allow is around 3-4%, which is what the airport are really after?


User currently offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1709 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 11593 times:

Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 13):
The only routes that are likely to be moved to LGW are possibly the routes which are nearly wholly O&D routes that have very limited number of passengers transferring on to other BA flights and the Leisure market routes, which I think are already flown mainly from Gatwick.

I agree, I think BA should identify which routes are primarily O&D and move them to LGW. To be honest getting to LGW from central London takes almost exactly the same amount of time so it should not deter travellers and North Terminal should maybe become the "legacy hub" with all LCCs and charter airlines operating out of South Terminal; this will provide a much better opportunity to compete with Heathrow.



Next Flights: LHR-OSL (319-BA), OSL-LHR (319-BA), LHR-IAH (744-BA), MSY-LGA (319-DL), JFK-LHR (744-BA)
User currently onlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19215 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 11559 times:

Quoting Eagleboy (Reply 12):
its use them or lose them.

Yep - and slots must be used at least 80% of the time.



"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently onlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3238 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 11475 times:

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 14):
I agree, I think BA should identify which routes are primarily O&D and move them to LGW

This has already happened, BA at LGW is predicated on point to point with minimal feed.


User currently offlinegilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3014 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 11475 times:

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 14):
To be honest getting to LGW from central London takes almost exactly the same amount of time so it should not deter travellers and North Terminal should maybe become the "legacy hub" with all LCCs and charter airlines operating out of South Terminal; this will provide a much better opportunity to compete with Heathrow.

I agree with you...

But many people will just not give LGW the time of day, I think I would be safe is saying this is primarily foreign travellers. They think travel into London is a pain and when it really isn't.

There just isn't space in either terminals to concentrate all LCC ops to one and Legacy to another. easyJet are so large now at LGW, they cannot be accommodated in a single Terminal at present. There is talk from around 2016 onwards they might try to move all of easyJet's ops to the South Terminal, but this will require a lot of work as they have at present over 50 aircraft based there!


User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7474 posts, RR: 17
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 11333 times:

Quoting Bthebest (Reply 11):
Quick query though: If an airline has the slots - does it have to use them? Is there a minimum amount of movements it has to make to keep the slot?

If a slot is not used in a specific Winter or Summer Season for a minimum of 80 per cent of available occasions it will be confiscated and reallocated under the guidelines laid down by the EC.

Some while back TristarSteve reported that BA keep a log of cancelled flights to ensure that they did not loose slots in this way.. See his Reply 37 here:

Time For BA To Reassess Its Route Network? (by Skyhigh Mar 21 2009 in Civil Aviation)?threadid=4357762&searchid=4361102&s=tristarsteve+slots+ba#ID4361102

Before BMed was bought by BD there was quite an outcry when during Winter Season 2006-07 they ferried a 320 LHR-CWL to overnight six days a week purely as an LHR slot sitting exercise. Here is link to the resulting a-net discussion:

BMed Operating Empty Flights LHR-CWL (by Sean377 Mar 12 2007 in Civil Aviation)?threadid=3302451&searchid=3302622&s=cwl+320+lhr+slot#ID3302622


User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1990 posts, RR: 24
Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 10949 times:

Supply and demand. LHR authorities should call his bluff.

User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 10663 times:

I don't know if it is a threat (despite the dramatic headline) more than a reflection of a possible outcome. Like any business BA would have to consider the economics of each flight to see whether it is warranted or from where it can best be provided. Shifting some flights to LGW might make sense if increased fees make them less viable from LHR.

It may be a delicate balancing act depending on how much of the traffic is connecting. Travellers from MAN, GLA, etc would not particularly welcome being brought into LHR only to have to make an overland journey to LGW, particularly if there is a more convenient alternative.

Clearly Walsh is not talking about shifting a major part of BA operations to LGW because he would be aware of the limitations - one runway only, etc. But there may be a case for shifting some flights to offset any increase at LHR. If the slots that are unutilised are tradeable, BA might come out ahead.

But I have a question: BA and others want expansion at LHR. They apparently wish (in the absence of lifting the curfew but perhaps in addition to) an additional runway. Who do they think should fund that? Please note, that I do not believe that any increase in fees should simply result in an increase in share-value or dividends but that money should be available for the building of any additional facilities. These need not be funded by the taxpayer, particularly given the claims of subsidies given to foreign airlines because of support given to airport expansion in other countries. Do those who support Walsh (believing him to be making a threat) think the airlines should pay for any expansion at LHR or do they think the taxpayer should subsidise the industry?

[Edited 2013-04-22 08:06:41]

User currently offlinecornishsimon From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2013, 108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 10313 times:

Am I correct in thinking that LGW does not have the same night curfew restrictions that LHR has ?


cs


User currently offlinespeedbird217 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2012, 336 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 9501 times:

That statement is ridiculous. BA has a very comfortable position in LHR. Yes, they have no room to grow, but neither does the competition. They certainly will not move away from LHR, and they are watching the whole UK airport capacity debate very closely. BA is not happy about a new airport in the Thames estuary that would open up the closed market in London/UK...

Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 13):
The same must be said for other major European operators like KLM and Lufthansa whose bases are very focussed on one super hub airport and the operators of their airports doing something similar.

Not quite true for LH. They have a huge operation at MUC which is similar to the multi-Hub system of US carriers. Originally they moved some of their ops to MUC because of capacity constraints in FRA, but soon they realized that it makes sense to establish a second hub - that gives them a good position to negotiate. I don't know the current figures but by the end of last year they were serving 165 destinations from MUC and 178 from FRA.

But I agree that European carriers are usually heavily dependent on their hubs, as they generally only have one hub (KL, AF, BA, IB etc.). On the other side the respective airports are as much as dependent on their airline as the other way round. They could certainly fill some of the gap that a BA would leave behind at LHR, but overnight LHR would lose its status as the UK's main hub because they need BA as much as BA needs them.


User currently offlineDAL763ER From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 524 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8758 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 14):
To be honest getting to LGW from central London takes almost exactly the same amount of time so it should not deter travellers

It depends where you live really. I live at Paddington and hence it takes me roughly 45 minutes from my house to airside LHR. If I were to fly from LGW, it would take me more than an hour to even get to the airport. And the so called LGW express is expensive and slow.



Where aviation is not the side show, it's the main show!!!
User currently onlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3238 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 7924 times:

It's not "most people" who avoid Gatters, it's key revenue drivers in the forward cabins to who a modern network carrier must hang onto for dear life. If the Gold Cards bleed off to SQ and EK, BA lose massively. Moving a route to LGW for most of us is not the end of the world however lounge and premium facilities at LHR v LGW are not comparable.

25 eljonno : Exactly. It takes the best part of two hours to get to LHR by public transport (or 50 minutes by car) from where I live. Gatwick on the other hand, i
26 FlyLondon : Ironic his complaints as BA have been the main beneficiary of investment at Heathrow, the very investment that increases the passenger charges. How mu
27 goosebayguy : This is all about playing the game of negotiation. What it really could be though is a prelude to BA signing up to Boris Island. If Boris were to get
28 BD338 : If BA don't want to pay the inflation +6% cost increase proposed by BAA they certainly won't want to pay the cost of building Boris Island, that will
29 Post contains images lightsaber : Have slots at LHR suddenly become worthless? Thus: That it is. WW is a good negotiator and he's stuck with a poor hand. I'm expecting his bluff to be
30 EI564 : The regulator only tells the airport the maximum charge it can apply. So, LGW is free to charge lower fees if it wants to right now. Not sure about i
31 cornishsimon : Well i bet you that this already happens. I very much doubt if IAG was paying the same as for example BMI pre merger ? Each airline at any airport wi
32 YLWbased : I'll pick an airlines to flies into Southend every time when I have to visit London, I had the pleasure to use SEN on 5 different occasion and let me
33 Post contains links VV701 : I think this is unlikely. Heathrow Airport Ltd publishes its detailed charges - see pages 27 to 30 here: http://www.heathrowairport.com/stati..._Ltd-
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...
BA To Houston: LGW & LHR? posted Sun Feb 27 2005 21:42:12 by Capt.Fantastic
BA Likely To Add New/ex LHR Aircraft At LGW posted Tue Oct 30 2012 18:04:36 by jet72uk
Aer Lingus In Bid To Enter UK Domestic Market(LHR) posted Sun Jul 8 2012 04:10:05 by OA260
IAG To Offer 14 Slots In BD Deal posted Fri Mar 23 2012 01:31:01 by AIR MALTA
*Rumour* Afriqiyah To Return To LGW In May posted Mon Jan 23 2012 13:20:33 by LGWflyer
U.S. Carriers Move From LGW To LHR posted Thu Jan 24 2008 01:59:19 by RampGuy
Way From Terminal 1 To Terminal 3 In LHR posted Thu Mar 29 2007 15:41:42 by Columba
First Choice To Start LGW-LIR In May 2007 posted Sat Jul 22 2006 06:30:43 by LTU932
Connecting In LHR To Other London Airports posted Thu Jan 19 2006 00:09:09 by IceTitan447
DL 764ER To LGW In April '06! posted Fri Nov 4 2005 07:00:54 by AV8AJET