AirbusA6
Topic Author
Posts: 1494
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

LHR - The Hub Isn't Dead

Fri May 04, 2007 6:40 am

London has several airports. With the growth of point to point flights, and use of smaller Long haul aircraft, surely the likes of Stansted and Gatwick should be full of transatlantic flights, for all those who find it easier to use these airports than LHR...

And yet, what do the US carriers desperately want - access to LHR! With open skies, they will move flights to LHR and compete on the main trunk routes to LHR.

BA is embedded at LHR, if it had the slots and terminal space, I'm sure a lot of flights would be transferred from LGW to LHR.

BD is desperate to expand at LHR, despite being able to launch long haul flights from anywhere in the country.

This suggests that given the choice, all major long haul carriers to London want to operate to the major hub, rather than to the 'secondary' airports. Are they missing a trick here? I thought the whole point of the new generation of aircraft like the 787 and A350 was to reduce the need for large planes operating into major hubs like LHR?
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
swiftski
Posts: 1837
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:19 am

RE: LHR - The Hub Isn't Dead

Fri May 04, 2007 6:55 am

It's the connections that are so coveted.

Flying into LHR on oneworld or *A for example, and you can connect to pretty much anywhere in the world.

Additionally, even for airlines outside of alliances, people buying tickets into and out of LHR is huge.

A massive amount of UK & ROI "domestic" traffic is through LHR too, and barring MAN and DUB you can't fly to that many places from, say NCL.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: LHR - The Hub Isn't Dead

Fri May 04, 2007 6:57 am

Quoting AirbusA6 (Thread starter):
This suggests that given the choice, all major long haul carriers to London want to operate to the major hub, rather than to the 'secondary' airports. Are they missing a trick here? I thought the whole point of the new generation of aircraft like the 787 and A350 was to reduce the need for large planes operating into major hubs like LHR?

You're missing the fact that LHR is the O&D mecca for airlines servicing the London area.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: LHR - The Hub Isn't Dead

Fri May 04, 2007 7:01 am

Quoting Swiftski (Reply 1):
It's the connections that are so coveted.

You have it backwards.

With the exception of a few petroleum-related and Iranian connections, it's the yield that LON O&D will generally pay for LHR vs any of the others.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: LHR - The Hub Isn't Dead

Fri May 04, 2007 7:03 am

LHR slots are of value only in that the peak time slots are all taken. Its not that they can't get slots, but that most can't get ones they want.

You WILL see LHR take less of the traffic to Europe as a percentage of total traffic, and even the UK as time goes forward.

More over, right now airlines do NOT have enough airplanes to start more point to point services, much less planes of the right type. CO for example has done very well with p2p 757 flights, but they simply ran out of 757s sooner than they ran out of places to use them. 787 deliveries will IMO quickly start proving that there is plenty of routes for them that bypass hubs and get people to where they want to go in less steps. Most flights should end up only touching one hub at most unless you are going somewhere that is not a popular destination. Very very few double hub flights, and an ever increasing 0 major hub flight route network. In this I count an airport as a hub only if used as a hub. To me if you fly to LHR to go to London, its not a "hub" flight.
 
iadguy73
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 2:48 am

RE: LHR - The Hub Isn't Dead

Fri May 04, 2007 7:05 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 2):
You're missing the fact that LHR is the O&D mecca for airlines servicing the London area.

I agree. It's all about location, location and location. Especially for business travelers LHR is the most convenient. Even as a tourist/economy flier I think it's a hassle to fly into STN, LTN or LGW unless you are connecting the next day and staying in London overnight. Don't forget Americans prefer convenience over price.  wave 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 32andBelow, BRADWHO, COKMCI, Devilfish, hOMSaR, Indy, intotheair, Jetty, laxman, MattSYD, Prost, Shrimpo7, Yahoo [Bot] and 248 guests