padcrasher
Posts: 1815
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:17 am

London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:29 am

CO announces new codeshares exit CDG with AF today.

NW announces new 1 stop service via AMS to Bangalore.

DL will start flying to Chenai via CDG soon.

US/UA working with LH via FRA.


This was all traffic that years ago would have tended to go over LHR.

This is the price to pay when LHR slots are controlled and monopolized. I guess it's worth it?
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 4837
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:41 am

BA actually has less of a monopoly at LHR than LH does at FRA or AF does at CDG. If anything, it's the price of not investing in developing the airport sooner. (A new - short - runway in 2015? Hard to get excited.) But don't be too downcast. With Star and Skyteam these developments would have happened whatever was going on at LHR. And LHR will instantly become the number 1 destination for A380s. It's still a place travellers and airlines want to be.
 
User avatar
Crosswind
Posts: 2536
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2000 4:34 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:54 am

This is the price to pay when LHR slots are controlled and monopolized

Padcrasher,
LHR slots are controlled by an independent company - Airport Coordination Limited, who also control the allocation of runway slots at other major UK airports such as Gatwick, Stansted, Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Newcastle, London Luton, London City, Southampton and Bristol, as well as Dublin. The slot allocation process is fair and transparent.

Bermuda II and route licensing is a completely separate issue from airport runway slots. Any US carrier is free to apply for LHR runway slots - runway slots are available, maybe not at the most commercially competitive times, but again US carriers would be free to trade slots with other airlines. Obviously US carriers would not actually go as far as accepting slots as currently they would be unable to use them due to current bilateral agreements, and would be unable to retain them under the use-it-or-lose-it policy.

As for monopolised, British Airways hold a far smaller proportion of runway slots, around 41% at their main hub of LHR, than any other US, European or Asian airline you care to mention - most hub carriers account for at least 50%+. Far from a monoploy, BA have stronger domestic-based competition at Heathrow than any other European flag carrier in the from of bmi and Virgin Atlantic. This is in addition to all the international competition, and LCC carriers at other London airports.

The fact is with the strength of O&D traffic from London (LHR and LGW) to the USA, airlines can fill their aircraft with point-to-point traffic, whereas markets like Paris and Amsterdam make more sense for fith freedom onward traffic due to weaker O&D numbers. The fith freedom flights from Heathrow once operated by US carriers have been replaced with increased LHR-USA flying. With Continental/Northwest/Delta all being in Skyteam, it makes far more sense to route this traffic through their respective AMS and CDG hubs.

Detailed information on slot allocation policies, and a listing of available runway slots at various UK airports are available on the ACL website.

Regards
CROSSWIND
 
padcrasher
Posts: 1815
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:17 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 2:15 am

Delta/Continental/Northwest cannot under the current treaty fly to LHR ( by rule or practical effect). They account for 1/3 of all tickets sold in the USA. AA by comparison is 17%. So much of the US market is stuck with with the less lucrative LGW.

So as a result we have the US placing restrictions on alliances with BA/VS and other US carriers. This result is the UK seeing less and less Transatlantic feed to Europe and beyond.

So I assume things are wonderful for BA/VS as they get to charge a premium for capacity limited LHR. I'm not so sure the UK consumer benefits and of course this air commerce just moves to CDG and FRA. Airports that are open to any airline.
 
airgeek12
Posts: 725
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 8:02 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 2:17 am

At least CDG is getting the business. And LHR and/or LGW is already getting ALOT of traffic as it is, so maybe it's only best for NW and DL to go into CDG instead of LHR.
 
Airplanepics
Posts: 2590
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 4:12 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 2:19 am

Quoting Airgeek12 (reply 5):
it's only best for NW and DL to go into CDG instead of LHR

NW or DL have never used LHR, so why start now?
Simon - London-Aviation.com
 
padcrasher
Posts: 1815
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:17 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 2:26 am

Not to mention LGW does not have the connections you need with other major airlines to make it a viable gateway for feed from North America.
 
Spike
Posts: 1110
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:08 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 2:35 am

If its just tourists NW and DL want to bring in, then LGW is ideal and purpose built. Sort of Newark as opposed to JFK. Or Orly / CDG. Gatwick thrives on touist flights and these must be deemed to be - a 757 to LHR over the pond? Waste of gate space.
 
padcrasher
Posts: 1815
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:17 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 2:39 am

Yes Spike the thread is about London losing air commerce to CDG/AMS/FRA because of of the limitations to competition.

Concentrate..and read slower.
 
User avatar
Crosswind
Posts: 2536
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2000 4:34 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 2:40 am

The fact is your argument about runway slots being conrolled and monoplised at Heathrow is completely invalid, and it was your only argument in the thread-starter.

I don't see the relevance that Delta/Continental/Northwest accound for 33% of ticket sales in the USA, as opposed to American's 17%. American and United have a far greater number of flights and range of destinations out of London than any of the above. DL/CO/NW starting LHR flights probably wouldn't give the market any extra cities or frequencies.

So I assume things are wonderful for BA/VS as they get to charge a premium for capacity limited LHR.
As you are aware that American and United also fly to Heathrow. Any advantage that British Airways/Virgin gain from restrictions on the US market from London is equally applicable to American and United.

I'm sceptical about airlines serving LHR charging a premium over LGW - there doesn't seem to be any noticeable pattern in which airport has the cheaper fares at either for similar citypairs.

This result is the UK seeing less and less Transatlantic feed to Europe and beyond.
While Continental/Delta/Northwest can use Air France/KLM for interline connections at AMS/CDG - who would they use at LHR? If your argument is access to interline traffic is a reason, then these airlines are far better served at AMS/CDG. Since none of these carriers are in oneworld/Star Alliance interline opportunities at Heathrow are very restricted, virtually the only connections via their alliances over Heathrow are to AMS and CDG - hardly a useful source of transfer traffic when both these airports have non-stop service to the US destinations already!

The US carriers that don't already serve Heathrow want access for the perceived boost to point-to-point traffic, not interline opportunities. The supposed Heathrow "premium" would all but dissapear in any case if all airlines had access, wouldn't it? Any remaining fare premium would largely be used to cover the more expensive operating costs at Heathrow.

Regards
CROSSWIND
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13220
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 2:43 am

Quoting Spike (reply 8):
If its just tourists NW and DL want to bring in, then LGW is ideal and purpose built. Sort of Newark as opposed to JFK


EWR being the business airport and JFK being leisure, as per Port Authority figures.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
747firstclass
Posts: 821
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 2:45 pm

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 2:44 am

About 6 months after the US/German openskies was signed an article appeared in "The Economist" where it stated that BA and LHR were already noticing a drop off inb connection from europe to USA via LHR due to the openskieds the US had with Germany and Netherlands. Since that time France has an openskies with the US. I think it is safe to say that there has been still more erosion of the Europe-USA connectiing passengers that BA and LHR used to have.

To try and stem that, some BA european flights were moved to T4 to make it easier for them to transfer to flights to and from the USA.

I am of the firm conviction that in the end, it will be the loss of more connecting passengers that LHR will be opened to all US carriers.especially now that India and USA have an openskies and the potential for BA vto lose still more transfer business. The India transfer passengers are extremely lucrative for BA.
 
Spike
Posts: 1110
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:08 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 2:56 am

Is that true that Newark has more 'business' flights than JFK? I wouldn't dream of going to New York unless my ticket said JFK. Imagine landing long-haul at Gatwick.
 
padcrasher
Posts: 1815
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:17 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 2:57 am

Slots are controlled at LHR. New US entrants are not allowed to fly into LHR.

That's what I call slot controlled and in effect monopolized. If CO/DL/NW could fly into LHR, restrictions on allliances with UK carriers would be lifted. You would see much more codesharing and possibly revenue sharing as Skyteam partners do now.

Another example is cargo. The are entire regions of the country where UK carriers are non players because they cannot align with US carriers as Lufthansa and Air france do.

Hey I'm all for making money. If BA/VS want to keep LHR new entrants out more power to them. Just that this is AMS/FRA/CDGs gain.
 
monkeyboi
Posts: 447
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:12 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:06 am

Padcrasher there have been numerous meetings over the past decade between the american and UK governments to attempt to 'open up' LHR to all.

There has always, however, been the same stumbling block.....

The US government wants US airlines to have unlimited '5th freedom' rights between LHR and the rest of the UK/europe. So, CO could fly from say EWR - LHR, drop off some pax, pick up some more and fly on to ATH say.

The UK government was happy to agree to these conditions PROVIDED that british airlines would have the same advantage in the US. Ie BA or VS fly LHR-JFK, drop off to some pax pick up some more and fly on to JFK.

Do you think the US government was prepared to play ball on this matter?? No way!
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13220
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:14 am

EWR:

38% business,
78% O&D,
Average household income $98,200


JFK:

23% Business,
81% O&D,
Average household income $87,600
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13220
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:18 am

Quoting Monkeyboi (reply 15):
The US government wants US airlines to have unlimited '5th freedom' rights between LHR and the rest of the UK/europe. So, CO could fly from say EWR - LHR, drop off some pax, pick up some more and fly on to ATH say.

The UK government was happy to agree to these conditions PROVIDED that british airlines would have the same advantage in the US. Ie BA or VS fly LHR-JFK, drop off to some pax pick up some more and fly on to JFK.


That's not fair because no matter what Greece is not Britain, where as British Airways flying passengers between JFK and LAX is domestic service.

British Carriers can carry passengers between JFK and Canada or Mexico, that's that same as US carriers carrying passengers between London and Athens.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
User avatar
Richard28
Posts: 1622
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 5:42 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:21 am

Quoting Padcrasher (reply 4):
I'm not so sure the UK consumer benefits and of course this air commerce just moves to CDG and FRA. Airports that are open to any airline.


Although only four airlines fly from LHR-USA (ok plus a few others), the competition is rife.

Is it a conincidence that both BA and VS offer flat beds in J class, yet none of the other european airlines do?

BA and VS also offer IFE in all classes longhaul - something which is still a rarity for lots of airlines.

Competition under Bermuda II has alloweed this to happen, and has benfited the consumer.

It is also good for the consumer not based in London area, as a prime concern for the governement is ensuring that slots are available to feed from regional airports into LHR - if everything was up for grabs then many people in the UK could lose out.

It would be nice to open up LHR, but with the current state of play I doubt that it could happen anytime soon


Hurry up runway no. 3!
 
Spike
Posts: 1110
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:08 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:22 am

Monkeyman: excellent point. Isn't that amazing that the US won't be a free market for all when it is the self-proclaimed 'freeest market in the world'. If Easyjet opperated in the US they would knock Herb Keller's socks off!
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13220
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:24 am

No offense but opening up the US domestic market in exchange for opening up the UK Domestic market is not an even trade, what else you got to offer?..
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
alb222
Posts: 217
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:16 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:28 am

But the bottom line is that CO, DL, NW would give anything to fly to LHR.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:29 am

I'm not quite sure why anyone would choose to transfer at LHR these days when so many other more convenient options are available. When the only place you could get to from a lot of long-haul destinations into Europe was LHR, yes, today, no. If I'm heading into London I've always preferred Gatwick anyway, with the Gatwick Express. Similar to JFK. Who cares? EWR is just as, if not more, convenient to get into Manhattan or upstate.

Heathrow has already lost much of its stature as the preeminent connection point in Europe, as AMS, CDG, and FRA have gained heavily in point-to-point and connection possibilities unheard of even a decade ago. Sometime in the future, LHR will open up to more carriers, and the only ones who will really care are those airlines carrying then-devalued LHR slots and routes as assets on their balance sheets. No one else.
International Homo of Mystery
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:31 am

javascript:;
Quoting Spike (reply 19):
If Easyjet opperated in the US they would knock Herb Keller's socks off!


Um. No. No they wouldn't. They wouldn't even come close.

N
 
avek00
Posts: 3158
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:31 am

"I'm sceptical about airlines serving LHR charging a premium over LGW - there doesn't seem to be any noticeable pattern in which airport has the cheaper fares at either for similar citypairs."

The premium is not so much in the Coach seats, but rather in the Business and First Class cabins - the loads and yields in the premium cabins to/from LHR are astounding - even airlines with half-baked C/F cabins like United manage to do well flying to LHR. That's why all the Air Kookamongas of the world who can afford/get LHR slots fly there instead of Gatwick.
Live life to the fullest.
 
richierich
Posts: 3295
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2000 5:49 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:32 am

What a pathitic post. 'Tended to go over LHR'?. Your routes, Padcrasher do indeed go over LHR. Why can'y US airline's fly to Europe without stopping at Heathrow? Bitch.

Spike, your post is crappy and mean-spirited. Get over yourself and stop stirring the s&@t. I don't always agree with Padcrasher but I can at least handle our disagreements in a mature fashion.
None shall pass!!!!
 
padcrasher
Posts: 1815
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:17 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:33 am

This competition between BA/VS is a great example of what is going on. They are both fighting tooth and nail for the full fare F class passenger. Who can get a massage? Who has their own private bed? No focus on getting the price down. This is what happens when you control much of the business at a capacity limited airport. No wonder they don't want to open it up.
 
Spike
Posts: 1110
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:08 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:34 am

I disagree. JFK-LHR will always be the world's premium long-haul route and all airlines will covet it. All airlines will also want to connect to it/them/everywhere else. A bit like a big aircraft carrier in the Atlantic and North Sea.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:38 am

Quoting Spike (reply 27):
JFK-LHR will always be the world's premium long-haul route


Gander and Shannon/Prestwick used to think theirs was too.  Smile
International Homo of Mystery
 
Planesmart
Posts: 1766
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:40 am

STT757

'No offense but opening up the US domestic market in exchange for opening up the UK Domestic market is not an even trade, what else you got to offer?..'

Using that logic, the US will not for the forseeable future be able to enter into an open skies arrangement with any country on earth, because the US is bigger, has a more valuable aviation market...........

Or should it be based on market potential & profitability, in which case China, India, many European, Asian & ME countries shouldn't enter into an open skies arrangement with the US because the US isn't offering enough.
 
padcrasher
Posts: 1815
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:17 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:45 am

Just give at few years. Virgin will employ an attendant in the F class lavatory to wipe the passengers ass with a moistened cotton swab...the competition is brutal and the British love their class privilege....LOL
 
monkeyboi
Posts: 447
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:12 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:51 am

There is an easy way of getting a cheap CLUB class ticket on BA actually.

The EU law now allows passengers to purchase their ticket anywhere in europe, regardless of which country they live in.

Check this out.....if you go on ba.com and click on the 'germany' homepage you can search for flights priced for the local market. For example, I had a look at FRA-LHR-JFK and return in CLUB class on BA departing 1st March and returning 5th March. The return fare is EUR2142.00. Check on the same dates for a routing LHR-JFK-LHR in CLUB (from the UK homepage) and the return fare is GBP3669!!! The same sort of saving would apply if you were to purchase your ticket from the Italy or France homepage. So effectively, if you live in London you could purchase a cheap single ticket to say Frankfurt and fly the rest of your itinerary from there, via London, and save over GBP1,000.00

The base line is this.....like ANY business in ANY industry an airline will charge whatever the market is prepared to pay for a particular good or service. It is NOT about LHR being constrained. Another example......LGW is open to ANY carrier, US or British on trans-atlantic flights. Checking out a price on NWA from LGW-MSP in Business Class travelling on 1 - 5 March and the cheapest fare available is USD7474.00 return. Again, hardly a bargain but apparently what the UK market will pay....but not the rest of the european market.

I don't think it is a question of constraint at LHR pushing up prices....it is more simply that in the trans-atlantic market from London tickets in the 'premium' classes are in higher demand, hence the higher fares.
 
Spike
Posts: 1110
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:08 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:53 am

In a vfew years, UA will employ a flight attendant with pre-botox face that can actualy smile like a real person.
 
iluv747400
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2000 8:12 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 4:25 am

Quoting Spike (reply 12):
Is that true that Newark has more 'business' flights than JFK? I wouldn't dream of going to New York unless my ticket said JFK. Imagine landing long-haul at Gatwick


What is this supposed mean? Have you ever been to Newark Airport? Have you ever used Gatwick? Clearly not or you're simply being some sort of aviation elitist.

The total cost of the monorail (AirTrain) and train fare at Newark and JFK are essentially equal, $11.55 and $11.75, respectively. Travel time is also about the same. It should take about 5 minutes from any terminal at Newark to get to the train station and 27 min more to Penn Station. From JFK, it's between 8 and 16 minutes from the terminal to Jamaica station and 20 more to Penn Station. Connection times aside, they're equal. Choose your airport based on airline preference or price, not its name.

As for London's airports, Gatwick can be a much closer (time wise) choice than Heathrow for many parts of London. When I lived near London Bridge station, Gatwick was a short 30 min. train ride away. Heathrow was a 75 min nightmare tube trip and at least a mile walk underground at the Terminals 1-3 station.
 
Arsenal@LHR
Posts: 7510
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 2:55 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 5:26 am

A lot of people are claiming LHR is losing connecting traffic to CDG and AMS, where is the proof of this? Losing a few thousands transfer pax to Paris or Frankfurt isn't going to make any difference to LHR passenger numbers. As Crosswind stated clearly, London is a massive O&D market in itself, probably the biggest in Europe. If Heathrow was really hurting we'd see a gradual drop in passenger numbers, instead the opposite is happening. LHR passenger numbers is increasing post 9/11 and is forecast to increase further in the next 15 years. Terminal 5 and a new runway will go a long away in increasing pax numbers closer to the 100 million mark for LHR.

Whether DL, CO or NW are allowed into LHR will have little or no bearing on Heathrow's capacity.
In Arsene we trust!!
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 5:40 am

Quoting Arsenal@LHR (reply 33):
A lot of people are claiming LHR is losing connecting traffic to CDG and AMS, where is the proof of this?


Well you can't look at it on purely a number of passengers basis, you have to look at it in percentage terms. Yes, passenger numbers are increasing at LHR, but their slice of the pie in terms of connecting traffic has been shrinking over the years as other hubs develop and more point-to-point routes open. Examples such as all the red tails at AMS every morning has diverted incrementally larger pieces of an ever-growing market over the past two decades, just as widgets at CDG and tulip tails at FRA will contribute to the same pattern in the future.
International Homo of Mystery
 
avek00
Posts: 3158
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 5:48 am

"As Crosswind stated clearly, London is a massive O&D market in itself, probably the biggest in Europe."

IINM, until recently, LHR had more international traffic than any other airport on the planet.
Live life to the fullest.
 
ZRH
Posts: 4371
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 1999 11:32 pm

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 5:59 am

I think the reasons are more the alliances than the slots. DL/CO/NW: Skyteam, then of course CDG and AMS. UA/US: Star, FRA. This simply logical. An Oneworld airline would perhaps go through LHR or MAD. Actually Oneworld has not a hub in central Europe, like Sky (CDG/AMS) or Star (FRA/MUC). This is the reason why I would prefer that Swiss still would join Oneworld and not would be bought by LH. Oneworld could add ZRH as a central European hub.

[Edited 2005-02-21 22:11:21]
 
brons2
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 6:08 am

About this price differential...I did some Orbitz and Travelocity searches a few days ago, was looking for fares from any city in the USA I could get to on WN to anywhere in Europe. I'm coming over for the Basel DC-8-72 flight. I searched for flights leaving May 12th or 13 and returning the 23rd. Cheapest USA-Europe flight I could find was JFK-LHR for $425 on AA.

(it would of course require me to ride a train from ISP to JFK but hey I'm up for an adventure. I would have 4 hours to complete this trip if I took the AUS-ISP WN flight leaving at 8:30 am. That r/t flight will cost me $10 in taxes with my Rapid Rewards credits)
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 6:14 am

Quoting ZRH (reply 36):
Oneworld has not a hub in central Europe


What about MAD for IB? It's just as "central" in geographic terms as AMS in your example, isn't it? There is also the DUB hub for EI and HEL hub for AY, all OneWorld members, too. (I'm not arguing your point, but think OneWorld has underutilized connecting assets both on the continent and at a convenient entry/exit point.)
International Homo of Mystery
 
avek00
Posts: 3158
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 6:22 am

"Oneworld could add ZRH as a central European hub."

Truth be told, no one wants ZRH as a hub for anything - all flying to Central/Eastern Europe can be handled well via existing Euro alliance hubs or else by nonstops to/from the cities involved if traffic warrants it.
Live life to the fullest.
 
ZRH
Posts: 4371
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 1999 11:32 pm

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 6:27 am

Quoting AeroWesty (reply 38):
What about MAD for IB? It's just as "central" in geographic terms as AMS in your example, isn't it? There is also the DUB hub for EI and HEL hub for AY, all OneWorld members, too.


"Central" is perhaps a question of definition. Helsinki is far in the north and very remote, not central at all. DUB is also not very central. MAD is in the south-west, perhaps more central than the other two but much less than CDG/AMS/FRA or ZRH.
 
User avatar
Crosswind
Posts: 2536
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2000 4:34 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 6:38 am

I think oneworld would benefit from a central European hub.

While London is excellent (in terms of location) for trans Atlantic traffic, for most of Europe it is in the wrong direction for Asian/Middle Eastern/African traffic from Europe. Madrid and Helsinki suffer similarly because they are on the periphery of Europe.

London's location needlessly increases journey times for many Europeans, people may find themselves overflying their home airports en-route to Asia via London, 4 hours after they originally left it!

Swiss did seem like an ideal match for oneworld, I hope they can re-visit the ideas of an alliance in the future. It would be a shame to see Swiss become part of the Lufthansa/Star Alliance Central European greyness that Austrian/Tyrolean/Lauda find themselves in!

Regards
CROSSWIND
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 6:42 am

Quoting ZRH" class=quote target=_blank>ZRH (reply 40):
MAD is in the south-west, perhaps more central than the other two but much less than CDG/AMS/FRA


Yes, of course, and we're in agreement on that. My thinking is in terms of a convenient, underutilized connecting point for transcontinental travel, not necessarily intra-EU alliance travel (since a lot of connecting traffic at a truly central European hub would require backtrack travel for a lot of city pairs, wouldn't it?). It really would depend upon where your origin/destination is to which hub would be convenient or central, which was my supposition, not to negate your reference to ZRH.  Smile
International Homo of Mystery
 
ZRH
Posts: 4371
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 1999 11:32 pm

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 6:53 am

Quoting Crosswind (reply 41):
Swiss did seem like an ideal match for oneworld, I hope they can re-visit the ideas of an alliance in the future. It would be a shame to see Swiss become part of the Lufthansa/Star Alliance Central European greyness that Austrian/Tyrolean/Lauda find themselves in!


I absolutely agree with you. It would be a nigthmare to see all airlines of the German speaking part of Europe in the LH group and Star. There would be a monopoly that I would not like at all. There would also be too many hubs close together (FRA, MUC, ZRH, VIE). ZRH would much better complement LHR/MAD/HEL. As you said Madrid and Helsinki are on the periphery of Europe. MAD is ideal on the way to south America but for sure not to Asia.
 
padcrasher
Posts: 1815
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:17 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 6:57 am

I'll look for the connecting data on LHR vs other Euro hubs. But saying LHR is not effected by CO/NW/DL/US not being able to flying in there is just not correct. Like saying JFK would still be the same JFK if over half the European airlines were not allowed to land there.
 
Arsenal@LHR
Posts: 7510
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 2:55 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 7:11 am

I'll look for the connecting data on LHR vs other Euro hubs. But saying LHR is not effected by CO/NW/DL/US not being able to flying in there is just not correct. Like saying JFK would still be the same JFK if over half the European airlines were not allowed to land there.

Please expand on that....Delta, Continental and Northwest have never flown to LHR, and LHR has not seen a decline in passengers for years (only temporarily post 9/11). Three US airlines are not comparable to half the amount of European airlines. If BA, VS and BMI stopped flying to Washington, IAD would not suddenly start becoming some sort of backwater for airlines.
In Arsene we trust!!
 
aaflt1871
Posts: 2166
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 7:29 pm

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 7:15 am

Quoting Airplanepics (reply 5):
NW or DL have never used LHR, so why start now?



Are you Sure?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley



Quoting Padcrasher (reply 29):
Just give at few years. Virgin will employ an attendant in the F class lavatory to wipe the passengers ass with a moistened cotton swab...the competition is brutal and the British love their class privilege....LOL


If that is the case, I will load up on Chili, baked beans, tacos and exlax the night before and during the flight. I want the flight attendant to earn their money that day!  Smile  Smile  Smile
Where did everybody go?
 
padcrasher
Posts: 1815
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:17 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 7:26 am

As I mentioned earlier DL/CO/NW account for 33% of all tickets sold in the US. If you add in USAir the total might come in at 40%. Quite a bit larger than the AA/UA combined share which I'm guessing is 25%. Of these 6 TransAtlantic carriers only 2 are allowed into LHR.

Would JFK be the same if Transatlantic European airlines controlling 40% of European business were not allowed to fly into JFK? Surely not.

So the measure is not how much LHR has grown or not grown. (I would almost bet it has not grown like AMS/CDG/FRA have over the last decade) It's what LHR could have become. The most important connecting gateway accross the Atlantic. Granted it is still the most important market on an O&D basis.
 
teamregal
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 5:57 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 7:35 am

Quoting Spike (reply 12):
Is that true that Newark has more 'business' flights than JFK? I wouldn't dream of going to New York unless my ticket said JFK. Imagine landing long-haul at Gatwick.


Oh it's true...and in many cases, both business and casual travelers choose to fly to EWR because of it's accessibility to NYC.

BTW, how are things in London? I've never been.
You would dare to challenge me? .........Insanity!
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13220
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: London Gets Pushed Aside Again

Tue Feb 22, 2005 7:51 am

Quoting PlaneSmart (reply 28):
Using that logic, the US will not for the forseeable future be able to enter into an open skies arrangement with any country on earth, because the US is bigger, has a more valuable aviation market...........

Or should it be based on market potential & profitability, in which case China, India, many European, Asian & ME countries shouldn't enter into an open skies arrangement with the US because the US isn't offering enough.



Opening up the entire US Domestic market the largest aviation market in the World in exchange for landing rights at one airport is ridiculous.

Here's a better idea, the EU and US agree to open skies between Europe and the US. Allowing any carrier to fly any segment between the US and EU, domestic US service has nothing to do with EU-US open skies.

True open skies means any US carrier can fly to any international airport in the EU from the US, and any EU carrier can fly between any point in Europe and any point in the US.

ie..

Lufthansa flying between London Heathrow and JFK
British Airways flying between Brussels and Boston
Air France flying between Amsterdam and Washington Dulles
Alitalia flying between Zurich and Newark

and on the US side..

Any US carrier flying between any US point and any International European airport, including Heathrow.

If you want to go farther allow any EU carrier to carry passengers between any point in the US to any non-European International destination, and vice versa for US carriers.

ie..

British Airways flies from JFK-Toronto
Air France from Miami to St.Martin/Maarten

Continental flying between Frankfurt and India
Delta flying between Paris and Egypt
UAL flying between Munich and Dubai

etc..

Leave the Domestic markets to their respective Domestic airlines.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757