Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Flybe Sell LGW Slots  
User currently offlineseansasLCY From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 888 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9082 times:

Flybe will suspend all LGW routes from March 2014 after selling their slots to Easyjet.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-22629518


I wonder if the operation will move to another London airport?

55 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11686 posts, RR: 60
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 8688 times:

I'm not surprised, this has been coming for a long time now. The question is, will easyJet continue to serve some routes, albeit on a reduced frequency, or will some UK regions lose their links to the capital?


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinebendewire From UK - England, joined May 2011, 62 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 8664 times:

It is still subject to shareholder agreement, Easyjet have announced it will use slots to expand services but did not mention if it will serve Belfast, probably due to high regionsl APD charges

User currently offlineCandid76 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 740 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 8647 times:

Nowadays LGW is increasingly an O & D airport rather than connecting hub. I don't see how, hypothetically, routes moving from LGW to STN will affect long haul connectivity all that much as these flights go from Heathrow. Travel into Central London is easier from Gatwick but there isn't all that much in it, and from STN you are straight into the City.

If you want to connect to the US from Inverness via Flybe then you can always go through MAN! Likewise through MAN on to Middle East carriers.

If we were talking about losing INV-LHR flights then that is a totally different matter.


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3297 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 8474 times:

Quoting bendewire (Reply 2):
Easyjet have announced it will use slots to expand services but did not mention if it will serve Belfast, probably due to high regionsl APD charges

easyJet are long established already on LGW-ABZ/INV/BFS so I guess we'll see IOM/BHD/JER/GCI/NQY dropped.
Aurigny will pick up the slack on GCI.


User currently offlineliverpoola380 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2012, 206 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8237 times:

Shame to see FlyBe having to cut its operations. I thought they were doing really well and only last year I believe they were talking about expansion.

Do you think more people are flying longhaul now rather than short or domestic routes as the economy slightly improves?


User currently offlineabrown532 From UK - Northern Ireland, joined Feb 2008, 152 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8167 times:

easyJet tried and failed to make BHD work for them, they WILL keep their BFS service but EI will now have the monopoly!

User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12563 posts, RR: 35
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8073 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 4):
guess we'll see IOM/BHD/JER/GCI/NQY dropped.

There was an emailed statement from BE today, which mentioned high airport charges and APD for its decision. It has also been mentioned that U2 would operate the LGW-JER route for ten months, then make a decision (which no doubt would involve some support from the Jersey authorities!) about its future. GCI will go, but IOM might have a chance, because U2 already serves it from LPL.

The big problem for JER is that U2 tends not to nightstop, which means that there will be no overnight flight. That's a very important thing from a Jersey perspective. However, whatever happens, I hope that U2 jacks up capacity sharply; BE downgraded the JER service to 175s (from 195s) and the overall capacity drop has had an effect on fares.


User currently onlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19244 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8010 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 7):
IOM might have a chance, because U2 already serves it from LPL.

And daily from LGW.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 7):
The big problem for JER is that U2 tends not to nightstop, which means that there will be no overnight flight.

True, but EZY does overnight where necessary and it could decide against a multiple-daily operation and just fly daily catering more to leisure passengers. Who knows? Anyway, this early morning thing need not be an issue, slots permitting, given the very short block time on LGW-JER-LGW (55/60 minutes), although there would likely be LF and yield implications. Guess we will see what materialises.

[Edited 2013-05-23 05:11:22]


"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5903 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8005 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 7):
That's a very important thing from a Jersey perspective

At least BA are still there, plus SI to LCY. GCI is more concerning because it leaves GR with a monopoly from the Island to London. I guess SI could consider GCI-LCY, but I feel that BE leaving the market will have a bigger impact there than Jersey. Also don't forget that EZY already serves SEN-JER.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinebendewire From UK - England, joined May 2011, 62 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 7618 times:

So sad for Flybe, ultra modern fleet and have tried so hard, but thanks to UK government who seem hell bent on destroying aviation in the UK and 1,000's of jobs that go with it.

User currently offlineby738 From Tonga, joined Sep 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 7479 times:

Interesting that BA (who owns a stake in Flybe) would be willing to sell to an arch LGW competitor. Goes to highest bidder I suppose.

User currently offlineanstar From United Kingdom, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 5295 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 7450 times:

Quoting by738 (Reply 11):
Interesting that BA (who owns a stake in Flybe) would be willing to sell to an arch LGW competitor. Goes to highest bidder I suppose.

Why would a minority shareholder (ie about 15% I believe) have a say in how the company is run?


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11686 posts, RR: 60
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7378 times:

Quoting bendewire (Reply 10):

So sad for Flybe, ultra modern fleet and have tried so hard, but thanks to UK government who seem hell bent on destroying aviation in the UK and 1,000's of jobs that go with it.

APD is a wider issue, but it's not the cause of this.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineBD338 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 727 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7249 times:

Quoting anstar (Reply 12):
Quoting by738 (Reply 11):
Interesting that BA (who owns a stake in Flybe) would be willing to sell to an arch LGW competitor. Goes to highest bidder I suppose.

Why would a minority shareholder (ie about 15% I believe) have a say in how the company is run?

If it improves BA's investment in Flybe then I would think they would be very happy. Deal is subject to shareholder approval so we will see if they vote for or against but as noted as a 15% shareholder there are another 85% who can vote in favor.


User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7747 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7195 times:

I am more concerned about the possible reduction in choice at Newquay.

Also this, plus deferment of E175 does not look good.


User currently offlineby738 From Tonga, joined Sep 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7002 times:

Quoting anstar (Reply 12):
Why would a minority shareholder (ie about 15% I believe) have a say in how the company is run?

Why would they not ?


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11686 posts, RR: 60
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6913 times:

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 15):
I am more concerned about the possible reduction in choice at Newquay.

In many ways Newquay and Cornwall County Council are now reaping what they have sewn.

Contrary to independent advice, experts and the management at Air Southwest, FlyBe was encouraged to compete on the route to London. The ensuing price war lead to Air Southwest exiting the route, entering financial difficulty and ultimately being sold off. This in turn lead to Plymouth's closure, which Al Titterington described as 'great news' for Newquay... but which inevitably lead to Eastern's complete withdrawal from Newquay too as the routes were interdependent, ending the majority of their air services. Then BE pull the LGW route themselves, as was expected since they entered it.

This series of events was inevitable and was repeatedly warned about - but some people thought they knew best. Now they have been proven wrong and there is the very real risk that Newquay will close.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineanstar From United Kingdom, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 5295 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6700 times:

Quoting by738 (Reply 16):
Why would they not ?

15% hardly gives any say in decisions - let alone even having a board position.


User currently offlineEltomzo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2009, 67 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6542 times:

Quoting anstar (Reply 18):

Tell that to Bill Ackman, who got rid of the CEO of Canadian Pacific last year and got himself a seat on the board with 14.14% of the shares.

15% is a very significant stake, and whilst it won't allow you to dictate to the company you will most definitely be consulted on major decisions.



AA AC AF BA BD BE BR CA CI CX CZ EZY FR HU HX GA GS IT J2 KL LH LX MK MU NH OZ QR SA SQ TG TK TCX UN UX VN VS VY WY W6 Y
User currently offlineheebeegb From Finland, joined Sep 2007, 424 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6491 times:

Shows BA/IAG have no interest in LGW

User currently offlineGT4EZY From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2007, 1800 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6414 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 7):
The big problem for JER is that U2 tends not to nightstop, which means that there will be no overnight flight. That's a very important thing from a Jersey perspective. However, whatever happens, I hope that U2 jacks up capacity sharply; BE downgraded the JER service to 175s (from 195s) and the overall capacity drop has had an effect on fares.

If the market for an early inbound is there and there is a case for it to enable EZY to be competitive on the route then I'm sure they will nightstop on the Island in the same way they do in several other destinations across the LGW network.
EZY aren't averse to nightstops it's just the case for them isn't always that compelling. Remember, the network isn't a feed unlike BA, for example, who have to have early arrivals to feed the rest.



Proud to fly from Manchester!
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3297 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6197 times:

Quoting heebeegb (Reply 20):
Shows BA/IAG have no interest in LGW

BA have no interest in the day to day running of flybe, they never have. BA do have an interest in LGW as can clearly be seen by the rather large based fleet, what they can't do is compete effectively against EZY on point to point.


User currently onlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19244 posts, RR: 52
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6091 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 22):
BA do have an interest in LGW as can clearly be seen by the rather large based fleet

Yep. And that applied: BA has 131,493 seats at LGW in the w/c 20th May, so second place and representing 16.9% of all seats at LGW behind EZY with 44.7% (BE is sixth with 30,116) and 813 weekly frequencies (to/from) and is second with 17.8% behind EZY with 46% (BE is third with 7.5%). Unsurprisingly, LCCs have 67.2% of all seats in that week period at LGW, while FSNCs have 31.1%. By frequency, it's 69% and 28.2% respectively.

[Edited 2013-05-23 13:06:19]


"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlinegilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3047 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5643 times:

I wonder is any of these ops will be transferred to Luton, this is the only other London airport they fly to...

I think it is with a daily IOM service and during the summer months a 4-5x weekly service to Jersey.

Im not suggesting they offer quite the frequencies as at LGW at present. But possibly 2-3 x daily to the likes of MAN and NCL and maybe daily services to INV, JER and GCI. If they are feeling brave they could also add a BHD service, but means they are competing with easyJet.

While Luton isn't the best connected of the airports with the capital, the existing easyJet domestic services to Scotland and Belfast, are always good sellers and regularly fly out full. They don't just attract travellers from London, but also the Northern home counties.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11686 posts, RR: 60
Reply 25, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5902 times:

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 23):
Yep. And that applied: BA has 131,493 seats at LGW in the w/c 20th May, so second place and representing 16.9% of all seats at LGW behind EZY with 44.7% (BE is sixth with 30,116) and 813 weekly frequencies (to/from) and is second with 17.8% behind EZY with 46% (BE is third with 7.5%).

Within that you can see why Gatwick are so keen to eliminate smaller types. Third most frequencies but sixth for passenger numbers - quite a disparity.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineScottishDavie From UK - Scotland, joined Feb 2011, 185 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5895 times:

Quoting bendewire (Reply 10):
So sad for Flybe, ultra modern fleet and have tried so hard,

Hmm...

Modern fleet - yes. Tried so hard - definitely not. In my experience their reliability was so awful that I wouldn't fly with them if they were the last airline operating. The only thing that surprises me is that they are still in business at all.

[Edited 2013-05-23 14:14:07]

User currently onlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19244 posts, RR: 52
Reply 27, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5910 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 25):
Within that you can see why Gatwick are so keen to eliminate smaller types. Third most frequencies but sixth for passenger numbers - quite a disparity.

Absolutely. And rightly so, of course, given increasingly scarce resources (i.e., slots and ground infrastructure).



"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineBoysteve From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 951 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5579 times:

Quoting Candid76 (Reply 3):
Travel into Central London is easier from Gatwick but there isn't all that much in it, and from STN you are straight into the City.

...and on Thameslink you can be into City Thameslink from LGW direct every 15 mins in just 40 mins, as well as Gatwick Express to Victoria and the West End every 15 mins in just 30 mins.For either destination in Central London LGW is quicker by train. People and also certain airlines are hellbent on LHR for prestige but only a small % of PAX are bound for the Paddington area!
LGW wins hands down when it comes to direct access to more parts of Central London, in the quicket time.


User currently offlinecornishsimon From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2013, 118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days ago) and read 5145 times:

No prizes for guessing really, but my main concern here is for NQY

The airport has gone on record today as being in discussions with two airlines about taking over NQY-LON services, I can see one of them being U2, but who else ? IAG in some form ?



cs


User currently offlineYVRLTN From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2520 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5056 times:

Quoting by738 (Reply 11):
Interesting that BA (who owns a stake in Flybe) would be willing to sell to an arch LGW competitor. Goes to highest bidder I suppose.

Same reason as they sold Go to U2 I guess.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 4):
Aurigny will pick up the slack on GCI.

Would GR be interested in the JER route too?

Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 24):
While Luton isn't the best connected of the airports with the capital

Its just as good as LGW to St Pancras & City Thameslink. The issue is the bus arrangement to Luton Parkway, always thought they should have put in a MAGLEV line to the terminal.

Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 24):
I think it is with a daily IOM service and during the summer months a 4-5x weekly service to Jersey.

IOM is very long standing route inherited from Manx who operated it back to the 80's with a Shed, later BACon with an ATP then 146. JER was always a weekend seasonal BD route, I remember the Fokker's, possibly the DC9's operated it before that. BE inherited both but guess they made money to keep them.

Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 24):
I wonder is any of these ops will be transferred to Luton, this is the only other London airport they fly to...

Possibly, but depends how much of the LGW traffic was O&D to London and how much was connecting. LTN connections are pretty acceptable considering what the airpot was 20 years ago, but not the choices of LGW.

Quoting cornishsimon (Reply 29):
but my main concern here is for NQY

Maybe a twice daily to AMS with KLM would do the trick.

Quoting cornishsimon (Reply 29):
The airport has gone on record today as being in discussions with two airlines about taking over NQY-LON services, I can see one of them being U2, but who else ? IAG in some form ?

Cityjet, Aer Arran or Eastern possibly. Then again, who would have seen Minoan at OXF or Darwin at CBG, so could be out of left field.



Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11686 posts, RR: 60
Reply 31, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5049 times:

Quoting cornishsimon (Reply 29):
The airport has gone on record today as being in discussions with two airlines about taking over NQY-LON services, I can see one of them being U2, but who else ? IAG in some form ?

Ryanair and easyJet.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 30):
Maybe a twice daily to AMS with KLM would do the trick.

Overkill for the NQY market.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 30):
Cityjet, Aer Arran or Eastern possibly.

No, not interested and already pulled out.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 30):
Then again, who would have seen Minoan at OXF or Darwin at CBG, so could be out of left field.

I didn't see Minoan at OXF, personally I don't see them being there for long either, but both have been prime airports for passengers services for a while now.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinecornishsimon From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2013, 118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4445 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 31):

Ryanair and easyJet.

I knew of U2 as local radio were reporting that discussions were underway, however is Ryanair your opinion or fact ?


cs


User currently onlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19244 posts, RR: 52
Reply 33, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4400 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 31):
Ryanair

I recall flying FR on STN-NQY-STN a couple times, including on an ex-CO 733. Seems an awful long time ago now.  Wink

---

In today's The Times, Jim French, flybe's chairman, said: "Gatwick is losing us a very substantial amount of money." This is partially because its fees have "increased 102 per cent" over 5 years for operators of smaller aircraft." As such, "it no long really makes sense to continue pouring money down the drain."

[Edited 2013-05-24 01:08:03]


"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11686 posts, RR: 60
Reply 34, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4302 times:

Quoting cornishsimon (Reply 32):
I knew of U2 as local radio were reporting that discussions were underway, however is Ryanair your opinion or fact ?

I couldn't possibly say...


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinesam1987 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 946 posts, RR: 1
Reply 35, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3970 times:

I imagine easyJet will use the slots to grow their existing profitable routes and potentially add a few more destinations (although they already operate 100+ destinations with 50+ aircraft at LGW so there aren't many gaps on their route map!)... whilst my guess for the BE destinations are as follows:

JER: BE add capacity to LTN, BA add capacity to LGW, Blue Islands add capacity to LCY, Aurigny potentially add new service to LGW
GCI: Aurigny add capacity to LGW and STN
IOM: BA add capacity to LCY (use their own Embraers rather than the leased Saab), BE add capacity to LTN
INV: Probably the only route where easyJet could operate a decent 2pd schedule, although the lack of nightstop may be an issue
BHD: I'd be surprised if the capacity is replaced as there are so many airlines flying between Belfast and London
NCL/NQY: I'm guessing the LGW connection is at risk for these two



Next flights: LGW-LBA-LGW, LHR-SIN-SYD, SYD-BKK-LHR, LGW-GRO, GRO-CIA, CIA-MAD, MAD-LGW
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3297 posts, RR: 1
Reply 36, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3761 times:

Quoting Boysteve (Reply 28):
People and also certain airlines are hellbent on LHR for prestige

It's not prestige, that's naive, it's profit. Such multi million pound decisions by majr airlines need a business case and a sound logical raison d'etre. (exceptions being those with the magical route planning dartboard....)

Eastern operate very a very expensive fares structure based around last minute businessmen travelling out of necessity, CityJet won't waste a prime LCY slot on NQY, perhaps I mean shouldn't as they seem to be going to Hell in a handcart at the moment. Outside the bubble of the last few years, I am not sure what a year round service to NQY type carrier would be. Air Southwest mainly but flybe made that one go away rather well....


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5477 posts, RR: 30
Reply 37, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3703 times:

It seems odd that an English based airline won't have a real presence in London.


What the...?
User currently offlinevfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 4029 posts, RR: 5
Reply 38, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3564 times:

Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 24):
I wonder is any of these ops will be transferred to Luton, this is the only other London airport they fly to...

IIRC, LTN does not have any spare capacity before 0900/30ish because of the Wizzair armada, so almost impossible to offer a decent schedule with multiple daily flights.


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7264 posts, RR: 57
Reply 39, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3504 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 37):
It seems odd that an English based airline won't have a real presence in London.

Not London airways!  
Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 33):
including on an ex-CO 733. Seems an awful long time ago now.  


Ah, the CO / Buzz livery and the part Ryanair decals....
From memory there is one with part of all three liveries...

Nine - yes nine years ago!

http://i.planepictures.net/25/04/1093431255.jpg





The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineBoysteve From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 951 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 6 months 8 hours ago) and read 2924 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 36):
Quoting Boysteve (Reply 28):People and also certain airlines are hellbent on LHR for prestige
It's not prestige, that's naive, it's profit. Such multi million pound decisions by majr airlines need a business case and a sound logical raison d'etre. (exceptions being those with the magical route planning dartboard....)

I was talking about Pax, not airlines! Folk tend to think that LGW is second choice even though onward public transport is far more widespread (and cheaper mile for mile) by rail.


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7264 posts, RR: 57
Reply 41, posted (1 year 6 months 8 hours ago) and read 2895 times:

Quoting Boysteve (Reply 40):
I was talking about Pax, not airlines! Folk tend to think that LGW is second choice even though onward public transport is far more widespread (and cheaper mile for mile) by rail.

People are often set in their ways, and immediately think Heathrow.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineOA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 27234 posts, RR: 60
Reply 42, posted (1 year 6 months 7 hours ago) and read 2833 times:

Quoting Boysteve (Reply 40):
I was talking about Pax, not airlines! Folk tend to think that LGW is second choice even though onward public transport is far more widespread (and cheaper mile for mile) by rail.

LGW is a decent airport. Using alot more myself over the last year or so . Its been made alot better with the money that has been poured into it since it got new owners. Still more to do but certainly each time I fly through it I notice the difference.

LHR still is the No.1 and most likely will be due to its connections and status.

LGW is very well connected to the South Coast which is my choice of Airport when heading to SOU. Just a shame LHR didnt have the same rail connections without having to take a lenghty tube ride or expensive Heathrow Express.


User currently offlinerutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 3024 posts, RR: 8
Reply 43, posted (1 year 6 months 7 hours ago) and read 2807 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 41):
People are often set in their ways, and immediately think Heathrow.

More vested interests in the travel industry and corporate travel policies actually.


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3297 posts, RR: 1
Reply 44, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2512 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 37):
It seems odd that an English based airline won't have a real presence in London.

Eastern don't either, nor Jet2.

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 43):
More vested interests in the travel industry and corporate travel policies actually.

Why fly from LGW if you can make more money at LHR? I mean let's cut the blah about cheap rail connections, bottom line is bottom line and it's not a huge mystery. Spend anytime at LHR and LGW and one can actually see the very different demographics at play gien the legacy empire route structure which made LHR a world hub.LGW just cannot compete with that.

GIP have spent so much money at Gatters and still lost Delta, US Airways and Korean Air in the last 18 months. LGW is brilliant as a big old Orange fortress but it's never going to be much beyond that in a free market. Even BA LGW are a mere fraction of the size they were when I moved to London in 2005. It's primarily an airport for taking English locals on holiday and bringing in European tourists to London, business routes to UK destinations are on the way out alas.


User currently offlinerutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 3024 posts, RR: 8
Reply 45, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2484 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 44):
Why fly from LGW if you can make more money at LHR? I mean let's cut the blah about cheap rail connections, bottom line is bottom line and it's not a huge mystery. Spend anytime at LHR and LGW and one can actually see the very different demographics at play gien the legacy empire route structure which made LHR a world hub.LGW just cannot compete with that.

GIP have spent so much money at Gatters and still lost Delta, US Airways and Korean Air in the last 18 months. LGW is brilliant as a big old Orange fortress but it's never going to be much beyond that in a free market. Even BA LGW are a mere fraction of the size they were when I moved to London in 2005. It's primarily an airport for taking English locals on holiday and bringing in European tourists to London, business routes to UK destinations are on the way out alas.

Not in any disagreement and IS the vested interest - UK PLC has only one Global HUB carrier does it not ?

What remain fact is Gatwick and indeed Stansted are among the worlds busiest International Non Hub airports in the world.

Both handle MORE international passengers than many of those monster US centres !


User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12563 posts, RR: 35
Reply 46, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2383 times:

There is an interesting development on the horizon, according to a reliable source here in the islands. Aurigny, the Guernsey based regional carrier, which currently flies GCI-LGW and JER/GCI-STN, is apparently interested in taking three Embraer 195s, currently operated by BE and because of the closure of its LGW routes, no longer needed; leases on some of them are said to be coming up soon. It would be GR's first jet equipment; like BE, GR has a problem in that it only flies ATR72s to GCI and of course, there is a cost penalty for that.

I'm not quite sure if/how they are going to get E-195s into GCI (it can only just take 175s); perhaps they can be retrofitted with the same mods that allow Trip/Azul E-195s to operate into Rio's SDU. Since GR is a Guernsey based carrier, GCI-LGW is obviously their key route. If U2 were not to operate LGW-JER, perhaps GR would. Of course, at this stage, this is just a rumour, but my source has been right in the past (and predicted that BE would end LGW-JER at least a month ago - much to my incredulity!)


User currently offlinevfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 4029 posts, RR: 5
Reply 47, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2348 times:

I think this pretty much is a no-brainer für GR as the capacity offered by BE at the moment must be covered by someone else (and LGW must be getting expensive for them as well if they keep operating ATRs) - and better for them to take up the slack than a new competitor. As it makes little sense to add ATR72 rotations throughout the day as there is peak time demand, a jet is necessary.

Whether the E195 can do the job is a good question. It has a 1460m TORA with a range of 500nm and slight load penalty, so for LGW it should be okay. No sure about the PCN, however, but as Lufthansa operated Boeing 737-500 a while ago, it should be within the limits.

How many frames are needed for LGW? Given that the E195 has 50 more seats than the ATR72, there is probably not much need for additional rotations. So three E195s look a bit excessive for just LGW-GCI and I doubt that other destinations from GCI warrant an E195. Maybe they are also planning to take over JER-LGW?


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11686 posts, RR: 60
Reply 48, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2256 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 46):
I'm not quite sure if/how they are going to get E-195s into GCI (it can only just take 175s); perhaps they can be retrofitted with the same mods that allow Trip/Azul E-195s to operate into Rio's SDU.
Quoting vfw614 (Reply 47):
Whether the E195 can do the job is a good question. It has a 1460m TORA with a range of 500nm and slight load penalty, so for LGW it should be okay.

The E95 could do regional UK routes comfortably from GCI's runway length, no modifications needed.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 47):
No sure about the PCN, however, but as Lufthansa operated Boeing 737-500 a while ago, it should be within the limits.

GCI's PCN is 22 F/B/Y/T. Even with a light E95 you are really going to be pushing the envelope there and shortening the runway's usable life for sure.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11686 posts, RR: 60
Reply 49, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2125 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 48):
Quoting vfw614 (Reply 47):
No sure about the PCN, however, but as Lufthansa operated Boeing 737-500 a while ago, it should be within the limits.

GCI's PCN is 22 F/B/Y/T. Even with a light E95 you are really going to be pushing the envelope there and shortening the runway's usable life for sure.

Meant to also add, LH has not to my knowledge ever operated to GCI, only JER.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12563 posts, RR: 35
Reply 50, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2127 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 49):
Meant to also add, LH has not to my knowledge ever operated to GCI, only JER.

They did actually operate 737s to GCI, but a good few years ago.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 49):

GCI's PCN is 22 F/B/Y/T. Even with a light E95 you are really going to be pushing the envelope there and shortening the runway's usable life for sure.

Is this the classification after the runway work that was recently done?


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11686 posts, RR: 60
Reply 51, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2071 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 50):
They did actually operate 737s to GCI, but a good few years ago.

I stand corrected. I presume it was it a 735 - I imagine you could just about get than down to ~22, or near enough for the number of operations.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 50):
Is this the classification after the runway work that was recently done?

It's the classification still being advised by NATS. My understanding is that it should be rising to 36 when the work is completed which is fine for the traffic GCI can expect to handle. I suspect there is little chance of new aircraft (195s or other) arriving before the upgrades are completed.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinevfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 4029 posts, RR: 5
Reply 52, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2063 times:

Here is the proof  
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Howard Chaloner




Current airport data:

https://flydev.rocketroute.com/plates/adminview/AIP-EG_EGJB_AIP.pdf?cmd=pdf&docid=800000000039285&icao=EGJB

Thresholds and some aprons have a higher PCN, whereas taxiway can be as low as 21. Looking at the data provided by Embraer, a standard E195 at MTOW (47,8t) requires a PCN of 25-26. MTOW of a Boeing 737-500 is 60t, but it must be said that Lufthansa probably operated a triangular DUS-GCI-JER-DUS route, so the take-off weight at GCI must have been much lower.

[Edited 2013-05-27 12:04:46]

[Edited 2013-05-27 12:38:40]

User currently offlinerutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 3024 posts, RR: 8
Reply 53, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2033 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 49):
Meant to also add, LH has not to my knowledge ever operated to GCI, only JER.

Wrong they have 1997-2000 period


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Howard Chaloner



User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11686 posts, RR: 60
Reply 54, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1967 times:

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 52):
Here is the proof

Thank you.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 52):
Thresholds and some aprons have a higher PCN, whereas taxiway can be as low as 21.

The differences are due to the piecemeal expansion of the airport.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 52):
Looking at the data provided by Embraer, a standard E195 at MTOW (47,8t) requires a PCN of 25-26.

I know it's what the APM says, but from having worked on a surfacing project to take ERJs I would be cautious about those figures.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 52):
MTOW of a Boeing 737-500 is 60t, but it must be sad that Lufthansa probably operated a triangular DUS-GCI-JER-DUS route, so the take-off weight at GCI must have been much lower.

That must have been a fun ride on GCI-JER!


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3297 posts, RR: 1
Reply 55, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1799 times:

If Aurigny do take three ERJs I suspect the Guernsey taxpayers will go mental. It's something of a loss making operation, not a huge issue flying a lifeline operation to London and Manchester but if they go for jets, then they're about to become rather more comercial, and frankly, it's a big risk.
The jump from Trislanders and three ATRs is a big leap to ERJ-170s, I wonder what Blue Islands will do?


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...
Aer Lingus Seeks To Sell LHR Slots To BA posted Fri Apr 26 2013 16:25:36 by LAXintl
BAA Ordered To Sell LGW, STN Plus EDI Or GLA posted Thu Mar 19 2009 03:04:16 by Gawzu
FlyBe Announces LGW-NQY posted Thu Dec 11 2008 12:12:34 by NQYGuy
Flybe At LGW posted Tue Aug 12 2008 02:35:52 by Sam1987
Olympic Loses LGW Slots posted Wed May 28 2008 06:24:35 by OlympicATH
LGW Slots posted Wed Jan 18 2006 17:08:08 by FLY777UAL
LHR/LGW Slots For USA Flights posted Thu Jul 10 2003 15:12:45 by 747firstclass
Bwia To Sell Heathrow Slots posted Fri Sep 13 2002 18:16:20 by BWIA 772
BA Offering LGW Slots Plus Cash For LHR Slots? posted Mon Apr 22 2002 20:06:26 by Crosswind
Balkan To Sell LHR Slots To BA posted Fri Feb 1 2002 05:01:44 by VS11