Gatwickgunner From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 89 posts, RR: 0 Posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 789 times:
If and when a open skies agrement is reached how do you see lgw's future,will it retain any transatlantic services at all.I believe the only airline to offer a usa flight through choice is virgins miami route,I may be wrong on that though.The way I see it is after the agrement is Gatwick and Stanstead will just serve european and charter traffic,I hope im wrong,what do you guys think?
p.s I think david_it would not be to unhappy if this happened
IndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2403 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 760 times:
Gatwick will probally still recieve some flights as it does service another area really of london and the south east. Hopefully airlines will see this and stay there too.....Heathrow is not the only place people are willing to travel to and from...some refuse to go there.
David_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7144 posts, RR: 14 Reply 2, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 751 times:
LGW will always have demand for transatlantic services as with the best will in the world, LHR would still be slot-restricted unless any movement limit is lifted by the Government thereby limiting expansion plans for airlines there. And as IndianicWorld says, it has it's own catchment area as well.
And I can't wait for open skies for LHR as this will aid MAN, BHX, GLA, EDI, etc as, in the words of MAN giving evidence to the House of Commons Select Transport Committee, airlines are reluctant to start services to Britain's regions in case someone (BA or Government - take your pick!) uses that to say that LHR access can't be all that important if they want to fly elsewhere.
747firstclass From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 736 times:
David_itl Thank you, very well said. The reality is that CO and AA would have started other service to cities in the UK, especially CO. There has been a lot of political support for these serves behind the scenes. Those airports are openskies for both british and US carriers. The feeling is that why should US carriers help these political types get the flights, when the same political types refuse to let them fly into LHR. Loyalty is after all a 2 way street.
IndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2403 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 735 times:
David_itl, good points there man, but i still suspect that LHR would then get even more important for them, and they would forget about some other destinations. BHX would IMO lose favour with some carriers as they would have LHR's higher yield service.
David_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7144 posts, RR: 14 Reply 5, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 729 times:
I do know that the Emirates operation at BHX came about due to a of lack of available commercial slots at LHR but it is taking passengers away from LHR as it seems that the Midlands-area passengers use LHR and not MAN. So, I do see room for some BHX routes (JFK & ATL specifically) once open-skies are agreed.
747firstclass From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 725 times:
Many US carriers have said they would start UK service from the US AFTER they are granted LHR rights. In the end this will help ease the strain on LHR. Also overlooked in all this, is years ago the US and UK signed openskies for service between all UK airports the US. Exceptions being LGW and LHR which are still controled etc. As a result of this, a few flughts were added, some dropped. Overall it was not as successful in the Midlands as many in the UK had hoped. Compound that by people flying from the Midlands to BRU, AMS, CDG, etc. to make their onward connections and you have a serious problem for BA and the UK. Passengers and revenue are falling through the cracks big time. Yet no one in BA or the UK is willing to admit what the solution needs to be.
IndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2403 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 725 times:
well its a tough one really, all about airline economics and where people wanna fly from. BHX is far more user friendly but is the market big enough for such services from there. Its not really were the money is...LHR holds those cards.
CV640 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 948 posts, RR: 6 Reply 8, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 700 times:
You also have to remember some simple laws of psychics. LHR can only handle so many flights, so LGW would always recieve traffic from the US, even after open skies.
In late 2000 Congress removed slots from LaGuadia in NY and that was a disaster. Airlines started tons of new routes from there and it was a nightmare of congestion. I was on one flight where we were taxiing for over 3 hours on what was scheduled as a 2 1/2 hour flight. There are only so many runways and so many arrivals and departures per hour they can handle.
No matter how many airlines want to operate from LHR with how many flights, there is a set amount that they can handle. Unless more runways are built, or other ways to open it up, I can't see how many new services can be started, even with open skies. Any new flights would come at the expense of present services