Sonic From Lithuania, joined Jan 2000, 1670 posts, RR: 1 Posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1223 times:
Lithuanian Airlines sold their slots in Heathrow for 5 million dollars for British Airways. LAL will fly Vilnius-Gatwick instead of Vilnius-Heathrow from now on. That is a huge loss of prestige to nowadays very derimental flag carrier. This is a part of reorganisation of the airline. LAL is 100% owned by government so it is (or at least was) true flag carrier flying to the best airports at 30%-50% loadfactors to give more place to people.
British Airways paid for slots 20 million Litas (5 million dollars) and gave slots in Gatwick. American Airlines also were interested in slots.
Vilnius-London route is now operated by only Lithuanian Airlines (1 flight a day with SAAB 2000, sometimes Yakovlev Yak-42 or Boeing 737-300). A few years ago BA also operated route but withdrew after they had huge loss, because they flown at the same prices to gatwick, not to Heathrow like LAL. Vilnius-London is one of very few profitable routes for LAL.
Rick767 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 2662 posts, RR: 52 Reply 3, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1082 times:
"That is a huge loss of prestige"
Flying to Gatwick instead of Heathrow?? Are you serious?? They're doing their passengers a favour!
Ok so our little airport down in Crawley ain't perfect, but I'd avoid flying through LHR like the plauge! Never had a good experience flying as PAX through LHR, and thankfully have never flown through in an operating capacity.
But a huge loss of prestige... i had to laugh!
I used to love the smell of Jet-A in the morning...
Sonic From Lithuania, joined Jan 2000, 1670 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1071 times:
Well, this is what newspaper pointed out (direct translation; the name of article was "Travel to London will be much harder"):
"When riding with a car in rush hours, when the LAL plane lands, the Gatwick is hardly reachable. One can go from Heathrow to city in 45 minutes, and from Gatwick -- in 2,5 hour"
There were more words about why Gatwick is so bad. It included that many Lithuanians fly via London to North America and they will have to change airports now.
Vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3593 posts, RR: 5 Reply 7, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1014 times:
BA should be barred from buying those slots
...particularily as slot trading is illegal as slots are not an airline's property - the only deal allowed is a barter trade - which is not happening with 5 mio. quid changing hands... I am quite surprised that the U.K. slot co-ordinator does approve the exchange of slots if such a blatant violation of the relevant EU legislation is obvious and even reported by newspapers.....
RogueTrader From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1003 times:
I don't think its a loss of prestige, in fact, I think LHR is over rated. LHR is good for connections to somewhat exotic locales, but its US destinations are limited, although with high frequencies.
If there are a lot of passengers connecting to the US, LGW might be better in that it offers more destinations than LHR.
To America, LGW offers service 3 x daily to DFW and 4 x daily to ATL, the premier hubs for AA and DL. Additional service to CO's IAH hub, USAirways hubs, NW's hubs, etc...
What IS the big deal with LHR anyway? 15 minutes to Paddington is quite impressive, but the 45 minutes by train from LGW to Victoria is a lot easier than any central city transport in the US that I know about. I really don't know why US travelers often feel like they have to use LHR when LGW is still better than what they're used to at home.
Rick767 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 2662 posts, RR: 52 Reply 10, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 989 times:
The Gatwick Express to Victoria is a great link into Central London from Gatwick. I use it as much as I can to get to work, saves the hassle of driving.
Heathrow does have better connections (destination-wise) though. But getting from one terminal to another is an absolute nightmare. They could learn a lot from airports like Amsterdam Schipol (ahh, now there's an airport I like to transfer at!)
I used to love the smell of Jet-A in the morning...
Capt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 976 times:
I think the deal with LHR is the huge number of connections available-most people aren't interested in changing airports if they can avoid it. As long as LGW is limited to 1 runway, I find it difficult to see how it can rival LHR.
True, LHR has it's congestion, but it wasn't even in the top 10 for delays in the European airport tables.
I do agree that the distance to/from London is somewhat exaggerated.
Interesting point about the slot co-ordinator etc. Who is it?
Go Canada! From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2955 posts, RR: 12 Reply 12, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 968 times:
*it doesnt take 2 and half hours to get to central london from gatwick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thats the funniest thing ive heard in a long time, the travelling distance isnt that much different, gatwick is just as good as heathrow and the customers will see the difference.
as for ba being band..tough luck...ba are the national carrier of the uk..if they win slots fair and square then thats the other airlines look out..there are plently of airlines with more money than ba who could easily outbid them.....it makes me laugh that people have the cheek to maon at ba yet they dont critise their own national carriers who are just as likely to have more slots than forgien carriers.
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
Arsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7791 posts, RR: 23 Reply 13, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 953 times:
Here's the big deal with LHR:
1) Hundreds of different connection to all over the world.
2) LHR is the premier UK airport and indeed a world gateway
3) Under 1 hour into the city (Heathrow express) Easy access by car, coach, bus etc etc.
4) Big problem for Gatwick is it's "charter airport" image, as all the major UK charter airlines fly from LGW. Business travellers prefer LHR.
5) Most important of all, flights from LHR to North America generally have high yield premium paying pax all year round, loads are likely to be higher at LHR than LGW on the same route if operated at LGW. This is why the likes of CO, DL, NW ,US are desperate for slots at LHR because flights to EWR, DTW, PHL/PIT, IAH, MSP, ATL are gonna have higher loads than LGW, and therefore make money.
Vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3593 posts, RR: 5 Reply 17, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 913 times:
Each EU member state has a so-called "slot-coordinator" that allocates slots and supervises exchanges etc. The relevant body in the U.K. is "Airport Co-Ordination Ltd".
Slot allocation in the EU is governed by EU regulation 95/93. Sec. 8 IV says:
"Slots may be freely exchanged between air carriers or transferred by an air carrier from one route, or type of service to another, by mutual agreement or as a result of a total or partial takeover or unilaterally."
In legal terms, "exchange" does not cover a sale or a so-called "uneven trade", i.e. an exchange in which one party pays some money on top. The rationale of the prohibition of uneven trades is quite obvious - you can get so-called moonshine slots at LHR without any problem). In the past, BA exchanged, for example, BA moonshine-slots against KLM uk peak-time slots (resulting in KLM uk axing its LHR-GCI service - remember the outrage in Guernsey.....) but there was no crystal clear evidence that BA actually paid for that (although it was highly probable when looking at KLM uk's books....).
Btw, before confusion starts, the system in the US is quite different under US law.
Britair From United Kingdom, joined Aug 1999, 933 posts, RR: 17 Reply 19, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 891 times:
@ Go Canada....
THANK YOU!!!!!! YES! Finally someone who thinks this whole BA/LHR thing is unfair!! Well said!
It really bugs me the way BA is treated over Heathrow.....slots, slots, slots...give up slots...bla bla bla! Look at virtually every major airline and its home base......Delta at ATL, Lufthansa at FRA, KLM at AMS, Northwest at MSP, etc etc they rule the school! And still they get allowances and lovely anti-trust immunities (dont start me on that one!! Go BA/AA i say!)
Arsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7791 posts, RR: 23 Reply 20, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 876 times:
BA doesn't want anymore competition, they already have VS, UA and to a lesser extent AA flying key routes where BA used to have a stranglehold, but not anymore. Just because they dont want competition doesn't mean they can't compete.
Sonic From Lithuania, joined Jan 2000, 1670 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 861 times:
Well, BA wasn't able to compete with LAL few years ago so they cancelled a route. For BA it was derimental, while LAL got profit allways from that route. BA put really much in advertising (once almost all the advertising stands in Vilnius were covered with "Fly British Airways" ads), but they still ended up withdrewing. Lithuanian government didn't taken any action against BA, there are many foreign airlines flying in Lithuania (like LOT, Lufthansa, Air Baltic, Austrian Airlines, Aeroflot, SAS, Air Ukraine, etc.)...
RogueTrader From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 820 times:
virtually every major airline and its home base......Delta at ATL, Lufthansa at FRA, KLM at AMS, Northwest at MSP, etc etc they rule the school!
Yeah, these airlines dominate their home bases. But, any airline is free to open up competitive service. It happens in the US sometimes: AirTran started in ATL, and years ago AA built up its hub at ORD virtually from scratch to compete with UA. But this would be impossible under current rules at LHR: no one can compete with BA freely.
Here's what the Brits are really worried about if they were to liberalize slot rules at LHR. The US based carriers, including AA, would simply buy out slots from those numerous airlines who serve, shall we say, low rent nations, by offering outrageous amounts they couldn't refuse. I don't blame the UK for not allowing this to happen.
Arsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7791 posts, RR: 23 Reply 25, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 818 times:
BA/AA were asked to give up 224 weekly slots at LHR in the last US/UK open skies talks, but that was way too much to ask for. Maybe if it was around 150 weekly slots, then you probably would have seen AA/BA give up those slots to NW/CO/US/DL, but that might not have been enough for DL/CO and co to start competitive services.