Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Does LGW Have It's Own Market?  
User currently offlineBlink182 From Azerbaijan, joined Oct 1999, 5480 posts, RR: 15
Posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1447 times:

Many airlines keep wanting LHR services and therefor opposing AA/BA. However, while all the LHR hype is going, LGW must have a market for itself. While LHR is much closer to London, LGW is closer to the English countryside and is a nice diversion from LHR. If LHR were completely open, would LGW be seeing any air service?

blink


Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineNZ767 From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 1620 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1426 times:

Yes it would.
Even if LHR was "completely open", it can only take so much.  Smile


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 2, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1411 times:

LGW would have its own market, serving its catchment area, plus 100s of charter/holiday flights per day that serve the London area. The third major London airport, Stanstead, also found its niche, low-fare carriers.

There is nothing wrong with LGW, airlines just want LHR since it has many more connection possibilities. Also, the flying public has been brainwashed that LHR is the "better" London airport since it is closer in and more convenient to downtown......but the other London airports offer very good public transit.

One always wants what it cannot have.....so instead of capitalizing on the benefits of LGW, airlines instead focus on trying to get into LHR. I think its a short-sighted approach. Look at NYC and CO, CO built a large hub and international gateway at EWR instead of going the traditional route and try to squeeze into JFK. The same could happen at LGW, we just need an airline to take the challenge seriously.


User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 21
Reply 3, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1400 times:

The TransAtlantic flights don't make up that much of the % of flights at LGW.Especially so as EZY continue to add flights left,right and Athens.

User currently offlineRai From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1393 times:

Dutchjet says:
. Look at NYC and CO, CO built a large hub and international gateway at EWR instead of going the traditional route and try to squeeze into JFK. The same could happen at LGW, we just need an airline to take the challenge seriously.

The difference between New York and London is that New York's airports are pretty equidistant from Manhattan -- Newark and JFK are both the same distance from Midtown, even though Newark is in New Jersey. Gatwick is pretty far away from Central London compared to Heathrow. I’d even say that Heathrow is farther away from Central London compared with JFK and Newark’s distance to Manhattan. You have the Gatwick Express, but it’s pretty expensive compared to the Heathrow Express and it does take quite a bit longer to the city than Heathrow. New York’s airports (at least LGA and JFK) more or less compliment eachother and serve their own catchment areas.

I also don’t believe that Gatwick is really capable of handling more flights than it already has. It’s pretty much surrounded by little villages and the one runway it has isn’t enough for an expansion in operations. It’s surrounded by hills, so they can’t build a new runway, right?


User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 21
Reply 5, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1386 times:

It’s surrounded by hills, so they can’t build a new runway, right?
I don't think thats the reason they can't build another reason as the government as said they plan to build a 2nd runway at LGW.There is an agreement not to build another runway till 2019 that is the stumbling block,I believe.


User currently offlineShamrock_747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1369 times:

I don't think the distance between LGW and the city really matters to travellers compared to LHR. Though the train from LGW takes 30 minutes compared to 15-20 from LHR, the Heathrow Express only goes to Paddington Station which is far less convenient for the main tourist and office areas than Victoria, which the Gatwick trains use.

Shamrock_747


User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1365 times:

NZ767 said it perfectly. LHR can only hold so much.

Yes, there is a market for LGW alone. If Open Skies were to be reached, LHR would see the mass majority of long-haul international service. Infact, if there were room, all the US carriers would probably move to LHR and dump LGW.

So what would essentially happen to LGW is it would become a major domestic airport. What I mean by domestic, I mean it would have lots of service from Europe. Gatwick is very convenient for those who live in the countryside which is why it would still be popular for Europe service.

But when it comes to international service from North America, South America, or Asia, I think most of that traffic would move to LHR.

But like NZ767 said, there is only so much that LHR could hold.

Basically, LGW would become like Stansted, just a busier larger version of it. It would be "London's Domestic Airport" while LHR would be "London's International Airport".

Again, when I mean by Domestic, I'm talking about the entire continent of Europe, and not just the United Kingdom.

LGW would be popular by low-fare carriers like Ryan Air. So truly, if Open Skies would be reached, Gatwick would become a low-fare airport populated by a lot of low-fare carriers.

This is my prediction.

But it really doesn't matter, because it doesn't seem that Open Skies will ever be reached between the US and the UK.

Regards



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1347 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Another problem with LGW is it "charter airport" image. But the main reason for airlines wanting LHR access is the convenient connections, plus LHR s preferred by business travellers, thus meaning higher yields from LHR.

Arsenal@LHR



In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineEnglandair From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2000, 2228 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1306 times:

With regards to the normal stoping trains, most journies between Feltham (you have to get the special bus between the terminals and the station) and London Waterloo last about 30-40 minutes (but that doesn't include the bus journey and waiting times).
Between LGW (the station is under the terminal so it's very conveinient) and London Vicotria, the journey takes about 40 mins maximum.

So if you're going into the city by train but can't afford the around £15 ticket on the express trains, it's quicker to get from LGW in my experience.


User currently offlineLeo From China, joined May 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1284 times:

The difference between LGW and LHR = YIELD.

LHR commands much higher yields than LGW and that is why everybody wants to get in.


User currently offlineLJ From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1271 times:

But when it comes to international service from North America, South America, or Asia, I think most of that traffic would move to LHR.

Hasn't this already happened? BA moved most of its long haul flights from LGW to LHR and now they've bought another 9 daily take off and landing slots I think that all of the remaining non-US long haul flights will move to LHR. Leaves only the flights which they're not allowed to move.




User currently offlineBlink182 From Azerbaijan, joined Oct 1999, 5480 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1257 times:

Having used both airports, I actually thought that the Victoria Express was pretty quick. From LHR, we had a driver from the hotel pick us up. Realizing that when we were picked up from LHR, it was past the evening rushhour on the M4. When we were being brought to LHR, realizing this was at 3 am, there was nobody on the M4. However, the time had something to do with the traffic. Also, having connected at both airports, I would rank them about the same. All in all, LHR was nicer.

This is for the Brits here: Do you think that LHR has the capacity to handle all of the longhauls currently going to LGW including LHR's current load of longhaul and shorthauls? Could it be done? Or would it be impossible to make LHR London's true international airport while at the same time keeping shorthauls that are currently flown?

blink



Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1256 times:

You have the Gatwick Express, but it’s pretty expensive compared to the Heathrow Express

The Gatwick Express oneway fare is £8.20 from Victoria to Gatwick. The Heathrow Express is £11 from Paddington to Heathrow.

LHR commands much higher yields than LGW and that is why everybody wants to get in.

But if everyone flew from LHR, it wouldn't command a yield premium anymore.


User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 21
Reply 14, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1242 times:

The tube takes about 30 mins to get into London and is cheap.

User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1242 times:

The tube takes about 30 mins to get into London and is cheap.

Yeah, I highly reccomend taking the Piccadilly Line into town with luggage around 9am on a weekday morning.


User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 20
Reply 16, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1227 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

You can forget about having quiet train/bus journey's. The UK is a small country with a high population, 60 million at the last count, therefore everywhere you go, it will be crowded. Be it the bus/tube/train or the motorway.




In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 21
Reply 17, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1222 times:

Yeah, I highly reccomend taking the Piccadilly Line into town with luggage around 9am on a weekday morning
If your flying business class you hardly going to go on the tube are you?But for price sensitive economy passengers the tube is fine.You think its bad at 9 am get up earlier  SmileIt doesn't fill up till around Hounslow West


User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1222 times:

You think its bad at 9 am get up earlier

My usual transatlantic arrival gets in at 730am, so its about 9am by the time I'm on the tube! If you get lucky, you might get a seat, but maneuver yourself near the door by Hammersmith if you plan to exit anywhere in town.  Smile

Isn't it ironic that its cheaper to buy a one-day 6-zone Travelcard than to buy a return ticket from Heathrow into town?


User currently offlineLeo From China, joined May 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1217 times:

B747-437B:

''But if everyone flew from LHR, it wouldn't command a yield premium anymore.''

How are you going to get everyone in LHR on two overcrowded runways. Premium yields will remain as long as LHR does not get additional runways.


User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 21
Reply 20, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1207 times:

Isn't it ironic that its cheaper to buy a one-day 6-zone Travelcard than to buy a return ticket from Heathrow into town?
LOL,indeed.It's the same for returns from Hounslow too.Must be London Transport 'yield management'  Big grin


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...
Why Did Delta Have It's Own Term At ONT? posted Fri Mar 4 2005 02:24:05 by Matt D
Does Biman Has It's Own Maitenance? posted Thu Jun 10 2004 17:59:07 by Ams
Does Song Have Its Own ATC Callsign? posted Wed Jun 25 2003 21:45:06 by *HighFlyah*
Does UAL Have Its Own Building In Chicago, Usa? posted Tue Nov 27 2001 19:29:28 by United Airline
How Much Fuel Does A Plane Have On It? posted Sun Mar 13 2005 09:26:21 by Ktachiya
Why Does The 747 Have It's Abnormal Structure? posted Tue Jan 29 2002 04:16:12 by Legolars
Is It Me, Or Does TWA Have Bad Maintenance (link) posted Thu Aug 16 2001 00:58:22 by Critter592
Why Does Ba Have PW4000s And GE90s On It's B777s?! posted Wed Feb 21 2001 17:16:04 by SAA-SAL
Where Does Lauda Air Have It's Hub? posted Fri Sep 8 2000 22:17:50 by Noise
What It Takes To Have Your Own Airline? posted Fri Sep 1 2000 15:29:54 by Herman