I see that Delta is planning to supplement its existing LHR service with LGW after a decades absence


Seems like a good idea and an addition worth considering for United and American


I always thought it was a mistake to abandon Gatwick completely when Continental left as it’s a separate market with its own catchment area that many passengers prefer



Thoughts, opinions ?

Max Q wrote:

I see that Delta is planning to supplement its existing LHR service with LGW after a decades absence

Unless something's recently changed (it very well may have, I've been out of the loop for a while)... DL hasn't confirmed that they intend to send their own metal there.

The initial press release was curiously vague, and left open the possibility, but stopped short of saying they'd actually do it.

I'd be surprised however if they don't just hand it over to VS, who's already there and already has the infrastructure.

They might be looking at other airlines that have been doing this.

Qatar Airways is a big example - they are constantly expanding their LGW service to DOH since it is easier than get a slot compared to LHR. Emirates is the same.

Delta may fly their own aircraft there and use VS's infrastructure there easily.

LGW lost to LHR on the bid for an extra runway but has been trying to solve this by sneaking a flight or two on their "emergency" runway. This might become rife in the near future so they would have extra slots to provide.

I’d be surprised to see UA go to LGW. There’s very little Star connections from LGW that can’t be reached via the big Star hubs of FRA, MUC etc and most of the point to point traffic would likely choose LHR over LGW.

It’s possible to see AA in LGW but I’d imagine they’d try to leave it to BA since they already have their own crews, lounge, handling etc

Eirules wrote:

I’d be surprised to see UA go to LGW. There’s very little Star connections from LGW that can’t be reached via the big Star hubs of FRA, MUC etc and most of the point to point traffic would likely choose LHR over LGW.

It’s possible to see AA in LGW but I’d imagine they’d try to leave it to BA since they already have their own crews, lounge, handling etc

Star connections aside LGW is a strong
O and D in its own right

Max Q wrote:

Eirules wrote:

I’d be surprised to see UA go to LGW. There’s very little Star connections from LGW that can’t be reached via the big Star hubs of FRA, MUC etc and most of the point to point traffic would likely choose LHR over LGW.

It’s possible to see AA in LGW but I’d imagine they’d try to leave it to BA since they already have their own crews, lounge, handling etc

Star connections aside LGW is a strong
O and D in its own right

There may be O&D traffic but at what yield and there is nothing in the way of Star connections that would make it worth UA adding service. The only two Star airlines that serve LGW year round are TAP and Turkish everyone else is seasonal. LGW also has a reputation for being the holiday airport...that’s not usually the traffic that UA or AA chase after.

UA have a lot of feed at LHR, and would have none at LGW (barring TK and TP) in the foreseeable future.
EW's Multiple daily HAM, CGN, TXL, STR & DUS-LHR connect the German regions with approx 25 daily combined UA & AC departures. LH, OS, LO, A3, SN, LX, SK & TP all feed them aswell from their respective bases, although to a lesser extent than the SA hubs.
Not to mention the AI, MS and potential TK feed.

UA would also need to open a dedicated lounge, a huge cost and commitment. They would eat into their LHR margins, especially in the front cabins, as LGW is undoubtedly a lower yield market.

AA?
Maybe a PHL/CLT service seasonally to pick up lower yielding connections and free up a LHR slot for a more premium route? BA's 'hub' at LGW isn't optimised for connections, almost all of their routes are leisure focused, and few run at the multiple daily frequencies needed.

The only way I think we'd see UA or AA at LGW in the foreseeable future is if one of them received a large corporate contract to operate X to specifically LGW.

Finally, Norwegian have such a foothold in the LGW tatl market that they'll outprice the US3 consistently, and the premium pax flock to LHR, where the lounges and infrastructure are already in place.

Delta announcement was a way to steal JetBlue's thunder in the lead up to B6's anticipated announcement of London service, which is supposed to begin in 2021 from JFK and BOS. The designated London airport has not yet been named. LGW does generate its own strong O&D traffic, and many full service carriers fly there along side LHR (CX, EK for instance). It is unlikely AA would return to LGW (it served LGW from DFW, RDU regularly until Bermuda II was scrapped) and also flew to LGW from BNA and very briefly, from JFK when AA launched LHR in 1991. AA may also have inherited the TWA STL-LGW route, though I do not remember if AA actually operated it.

UA hasn't had flights at LGW. Continental flew there from IAH (2 x daily), EWR (2 x daily), and CLE, but legacy UA did not. I just don't see why UA would start a LGW station (or AA reopening theirs) as long as Norwegian maintains TATL service there.

AA has done everything it can to rid itself of Gatwick, even the Raleigh flight moved to LHR. AA has purchased every LHR it could get its hands on for their entire London schedule, which is very extensive, including the Charlotte and Philadelphia ex-USair flights. Very doubtful AA would return.

So United which is free to serve LGW but doesn’t suddenly decides to simply because Delta has decided to?

Where would these airlines fly from? Are there any glaring holes in the UA or AA networks that neither has the slots to operate from LHR?

Of UA and AA, I would think AA would be more likely, but with the large Joint Venture (BA) presence at LGW, their own large presence at LHR and dense BA 777 fleet at Gatwick, why bother? At the moment BA seem interested in using the 787 fleets to open up new secondary US destinations, even these have been from LHR.

Eirules wrote:

I’d be surprised to see UA go to LGW. There’s very little Star connections from LGW that can’t be reached via the big Star hubs of FRA, MUC etc and most of the point to point traffic would likely choose LHR over LGW.

I think those living in South London, Kent, Sussex and parts of Surrey will disagree with you on that point. Even for those living in Central London it might not make much odds going to LGW instead of LHR. I also don't think connections are the be all and end all of deciding whether to launch a route.

Had Norwegian not expanded so much on TATL routes from LGW then I could see AA / UA returning but not now. I think once DL start and possibly B6 then LGW will have it's fill of US routes.

United are unique in that out of all US carriers that have flown schedule transatlantic they have never served Gatwick, they had some charter flights in 1985 with 747-100's but the first time they flew schedule to London was in April 1991 when they purchased and started operating Pan Ams former Heathrow network.

American have of course had Gatwick operation, starting with DFW following Braniffs demise, Miami which they bought from Continental (transferred from Eastern) and they did start Gatwick to Chicago as they purchased TWA's route authority prior to the other parts of the TWA's Heathrow network so this was at Gatwick for a few months until they got Heathrow access in July 1991. They have also flown Raleigh/Durham which moved to LHR along with DFW with Open Skies. Nashville was served when this was a hub and at various points since 1991 they have also flown JFK and Boston for short periods, so all 10 of the A300-600 that came to Europe went to Gatwick.

Of course, American never had ATI with British Airways during those days - so has no need to fly to Gatwick now. AA have no long haul at Boston, are reducing their presence at JFK, BA have a low cost long-haul base at Gatwick, already fly to JFK so if a response is needed to JetBlue I suspect it would BA. American has form for a spoiler operation, it was widely believed that their 2nd stint at Stansted when they flew daily to JFK was a response to EOS and Maxjet, once they both went bust, a few months later American left - although this was blamed on the world economic situation.

Amc737

AC tried flights to LGW a couple of years ago and canceled them after two years AFAIR. This should be a good indicator for their JV partner UA.

Jomar777 wrote:

They might be looking at other airlines that have been doing this.

Qatar Airways is a big example - they are constantly expanding their LGW service to DOH since it is easier than get a slot compared to LHR. Emirates is the same.

Delta may fly their own aircraft there and use VS's infrastructure there easily.

LGW lost to LHR on the bid for an extra runway but has been trying to solve this by sneaking a flight or two on their "emergency" runway. This might become rife in the near future so they would have extra slots to provide.

What rubbish! As a former air traffic control worker, I can assure you that Gatwick does not "sneak in" any flights on the emergency runway. It is used under the most stringent restrictions, and only then if the main runway is closed for work. The UK Civil Aviation Authority maintains careful oversight of all British airports and safety issues.

Add me to the list of folks who just don't see AA ending up at LGW, largely because they have such a good thing going at LHR when it comes to connectivity. Sure, there's some BA connectivity at LGW, but not nearly what there is at LHR.

UA could throw a 757 over there from EWR, but not sure how big of an advantage that would be versus LHR...or why they wouldn't have done it years ago if they really saw the market.

LGW isn’t that much more difficult to get to and from then city center than LHR. I think if DL ends up with either a smaller Boeing NMA or the A321XLR and they can acquire slots at LGW, you could see them strengthen their position in mid-market cities like CVG, IND, PIT, RDU, STL, NSH and CMH. With smaller widebodies , they don’t seem to be under the same pressure as others to fill the planes going to LHR from hubs. Having flown into both, if I’m travelling for business or leisure to London, I’d much prefer a direct to LGW rather than a connection to LHR. I could a revenue premium there. With the right size airplane I think it makes sense.

As far as the AA and UA angle, they haven’t shown much interest in doing smaller point to point flying from focus cities and their widebody purchases kind of have them trending toward flowing most TATL through their hubs.

None of them


If Delta starts Gatwick service on it’s own metal...That won’t last long either

And if JetBlue starts LGW service...They will be out of there when they get Heathrow slots

The United States business traveler wants Heathrow. Spoken loud and clear several times

jfklganyc wrote:

None of them


If Delta starts Gatwick service on it’s own metal...That won’t last long either

And if JetBlue starts LGW service...They will be out of there when they get Heathrow slots

The United States business traveler wants Heathrow. Spoken loud and clear several times

I think it is to stop JetBlue from getting any higher yielding traffic. London is a big city. There are people that do not care the airport they fly from, there are those that want to connect in LGW and those that are from or going to somewhere near LGW. Because those that don't care and those that are from or going to LGW area is a big enough group to make a JetBLue flight work, Delta will step in, lose money and keep as many business travelers on its metal. I wish Delta would interline (and sell tickets) for connections on some LCCs in LGW. I definitely would use that connection to certain EU beach destinations

Two points:

1. About 6 months ago, Vasu Raja (AA's VP of Network Planning) went on the record in an employee meeting that AA has no desire to fly to LGW. That could also change, but at least shows that the prevailing lean is towards not serving LGW.

2. This is a clear case where it's important to remember that AA and BA have a joint venture. AA DOES serve LGW from several airports in the US (JFK, MCO, LAS, TPA), just not on their own metal. So, while these flights (JFK possibly excluded) exist primarily for EU point of sale, AA does have data on who uses them and how much money they make. Knowing all of that, if they haven't jumped in on LGW flights yet it's a pretty clear sign that either they have no interest or there's a very large hurdle to clear to make it happen.

I wish AA or BA would add a PHL or ORD-LHR flight. I've needed to go to ALG and TIR (which are served only from LGW) a few times and just ended up flying alternate carriers because the airport switch in London is such a pain.

jfklganyc wrote:

None of them


If Delta starts Gatwick service on it’s own metal...That won’t last long either

And if JetBlue starts LGW service...They will be out of there when they get Heathrow slots

The United States business traveler wants Heathrow. Spoken loud and clear several times

I mean, out of personal experience I’ve found getting to Heathrow from the city such a pain in the backside... It even often takes longer to get to than Gatwick! I always try and avoid Heathrow if I can go out of LGW.

deleted

I also thought it was a bit strange for complete withdraw. Obviously LHR was such the prize for CO years back, I figured it could have kept a 75B on the route to LGW.

Gatwick absolutely does NOT have “it’s own catchment area”. Everything about Gatters is linked to Heathrow in some way shape or form.
Gatwick is comparably MUCH weaker among paid business, the BA/VS premium cabins on the beach fleet is part of the wider strategy of allowing FF to redeem points at LGW while more often than not earning them at LHR.
There are exceptions. Emirates are quite exceptional and serve STN as well, Qatar are not commercially driven and even serve CWL! Outside that, from a commercial standpoint, LHR is much preferred as the local West Sussex passengers join the connecting traffic out of LHR.
Note even GS and CA have moved out to LHR and the MU PVG run will move just as soon as they can get a slot.
The DL/VS JV has no US routes today at LGW except MCO, LAS has recently moved to LHR as well. Hence the 2020 US operation is, IMHO, a classic spoiler for B6. If B6 end up at LHR, I don’t see this operation lasting a year.

It’s a shame but Gatwick is very UK based POS p2p leisure, and in these markets is always overshadowed by LHR.

CALMSP wrote:

I also thought it was a bit strange for complete withdraw. Obviously LHR was such the prize for CO years back, I figured it could have kept a 75B on the route to LGW.

US and NWA did, I think CO also did for one summer( ?), but as soon as they compared numbers for both airports in the same season, LGW lost.

LGW is all about the VS partnership for DL.

Jomar777 wrote:

They might be looking at other airlines that have been doing this.

Qatar Airways is a big example - they are constantly expanding their LGW service to DOH since it is easier than get a slot compared to LHR. Emirates is the same.

Qatar Airways have not been constantly expanding. In fact, it is their lack of expansion which is of note. They commenced LGW up to thrice daily a year ago with the 788, and currently that is how the service remains - still flown by the 788. It was projected that certain flights on this route would be at least a 333, if not a 77W within a year, and that growth has not happened.

ihmcallister wrote:

Jomar777 wrote:

They might be looking at other airlines that have been doing this.

Qatar Airways is a big example - they are constantly expanding their LGW service to DOH since it is easier than get a slot compared to LHR. Emirates is the same.

Delta may fly their own aircraft there and use VS's infrastructure there easily.

LGW lost to LHR on the bid for an extra runway but has been trying to solve this by sneaking a flight or two on their "emergency" runway. This might become rife in the near future so they would have extra slots to provide.

What rubbish! As a former air traffic control worker, I can assure you that Gatwick does not "sneak in" any flights on the emergency runway. It is used under the most stringent restrictions, and only then if the main runway is closed for work. The UK Civil Aviation Authority maintains careful oversight of all British airports and safety issues.

Oversight, in the most literal sense.

The CAA headquarters practically overlook LGW - even entertaining a breach of rules would be tantamount to petting a hungry Lion.

Living in MCO, I find the VS flights very convenient to LGW and transfers very easy.

While I agree with most of the posters here that it just doesn't seem to make that much sense, It is interesting to me that Gatwick isn't more popular.

How do most people get from the airport into London? I always take a train if available and the Heathrow and Gatwick expresses are quite comparable only a 10-15min difference in travel time and I would actually prefer to arrive at Victoria Station than Paddington. Though I suppose for the business traveler taking a cab/car would be preferable.

Also all this talk of connections in London for UA, I doubt they are very interested in having people connect in London, when they can connect in any of the actual Star Hubs in Europe or connecting in the US.

What if Norwegian fails ?

Max Q wrote:

What if Norwegian fails ?

No US carrier is likely to backfill any capacity that that Norwegian would leave behind. They would all welcome the slight boost in transatlantic yields.

mpdpilot wrote:

Also all this talk of connections in London for UA, I doubt they are very interested in having people connect in London, when they can connect in any of the actual Star Hubs in Europe or connecting in the US.

UA actually sells a fair number of connections through LHR.

My last trip to Berlin was SFO-LHR-TXL with the LHR-TXL segment on Eurowings.

You'd be surprised how many people in St Albans, Bedford and other areas around that neck of the woods hop on the Thameslink to LGW when flying intercontinental

Cointrin330 wrote:

AA may also have inherited the TWA STL-LGW route, though I do not remember if AA actually operated it.

They did.

TW ops ended December 2001, STL-LGW ended November 2003.

STL remained one of the 29 approved LON gateways under Bermuda II, until that bilateral was dissolved. So AA could've resumed it at any point they chose.

Cointrin330 wrote:

UA hasn't had flights at LGW.

Not entirely true.

Prior to the PA takeover, UA ran frequent scheduled charters to LGW using 747s.
UA5880 was the flight number used throughout the '80s and early '90s.

ihmcallister wrote:

Jomar777 wrote:

They might be looking at other airlines that have been doing this.

Qatar Airways is a big example - they are constantly expanding their LGW service to DOH since it is easier than get a slot compared to LHR. Emirates is the same.

Delta may fly their own aircraft there and use VS's infrastructure there easily.

LGW lost to LHR on the bid for an extra runway but has been trying to solve this by sneaking a flight or two on their "emergency" runway. This might become rife in the near future so they would have extra slots to provide.

What rubbish! As a former air traffic control worker, I can assure you that Gatwick does not "sneak in" any flights on the emergency runway. It is used under the most stringent restrictions, and only then if the main runway is closed for work. The UK Civil Aviation Authority maintains careful oversight of all British airports and safety issues.

RESPECT!! As a Former Air Traffic Controller, you should know better than disregard other people's comments with derrogatory ones. Watch the news also - might help you. You disconnected from ATC - not from the world!!!

PlymSpotter wrote:

Jomar777 wrote:

They might be looking at other airlines that have been doing this.

Qatar Airways is a big example - they are constantly expanding their LGW service to DOH since it is easier than get a slot compared to LHR. Emirates is the same.

Qatar Airways have not been constantly expanding. In fact, it is their lack of expansion which is of note. They commenced LGW up to thrice daily a year ago with the 788, and currently that is how the service remains - still flown by the 788. It was projected that certain flights on this route would be at least a 333, if not a 77W within a year, and that growth has not happened.

[quote="ihmcallister"]

I referred to Qatar Airways starting LGW in the first place rather than increasing frequency. The lack of increase on frequency can also be attributed to the Middle Eastern blockade which is still in place and is affecting them heavily. I would go as far as saying that they should actually have already reduced LGW to twice daily and/or further or maybe shedding capacity at LHR.

There won't be DL metal at LGW. Any/everything will go via VS. Although I've been waiting for a while for VS to open a competitively priced service to ATL to feed DL connections. BA's service from LHR can be ££££.

Ahhh, remember when....1981

CaliguyNYC wrote:

I wish Delta would interline (and sell tickets) for connections on some LCCs in LGW. I definitely would use that connection to certain EU beach destinations

To an extent, they do - via their Metal Neutral JV with Virgin Atlantic and Worldwide by easyJet. Not strictly a through Ticket, but they'll rebook you if you misconnect. And yes you need to collect your bags and drop them at a check-in desk in the Baggage hall, but that's the same as International to Domestic transfers in the States.

mpdpilot wrote:

Also all this talk of connections in London for UA, I doubt they are very interested in having people connect in London, when they can connect in any of the actual Star Hubs in Europe or connecting in the US.

You'd be surprised. With the Metal Neutral JV on all Star Alliance operated TATL flights from North America to Heathrow (excluding NZ LHR-LAX), every UA flight to/from LHR carries LH/LX/OS/SN/AC flight numbers allowing multiple possible connections to lots of gateways (and also EW flights).

That's a great pic on 1981. How nostalgic. And that Air Florida DC-10......

Bhoy wrote:

CaliguyNYC wrote:

I wish Delta would interline (and sell tickets) for connections on some LCCs in LGW. I definitely would use that connection to certain EU beach destinations

To an extent, they do - via their Metal Neutral JV with Virgin Atlantic and Worldwide by easyJet. Not strictly a through Ticket, but they'll rebook you if you misconnect. And yes you need to collect your bags and drop them at a check-in desk in the Baggage hall, but that's the same as International to Domestic transfers in the States.

DL has AF/KL/AZ for connections in Europe - interline, lounge access, mileage-earning/redemption, revenue JVs. Feeding traffic to Gatwick LCCs will not be the plan.

yuomi wrote:

There won't be DL metal at LGW. Any/everything will go via VS. Although I've been waiting for a while for VS to open a competitively priced service to ATL to feed DL connections. BA's service from LHR can be ££££.

Maybe the LGW service will be all VS but I wouldn't bet $ on it.

The goal of opening LGW service isn't to undercut DL/VS' own LHR-ATL-xxx pricing.

MIflyer12 wrote:

yuomi wrote:

There won't be DL metal at LGW. Any/everything will go via VS. Although I've been waiting for a while for VS to open a competitively priced service to ATL to feed DL connections. BA's service from LHR can be ££££.

Maybe the LGW service will be all VS but I wouldn't bet $ on it.

The goal of opening LGW service isn't to undercut DL/VS' own LHR-ATL-xxx pricing.

I’m one of the one thinking it will be VS metal. It’s easier for the VS/DL combo to let VS add a couple of flights to BOS and JFK (places already served by VS with contracts in place, it’s just saying +1) from a current LGW base where they already operate (Same, it’s just saying +2). If Delta were to open LGW as a NEW station, they will have to source from scratch all kind of facilities and services that VS already has there.

That’s called synergies.
Another different scenario would be If due to frequency or capacity the VS/DL duo would want to fly with a 757sized plane that VS does not operate....

VS dropped the 4engines4longhaul but they still do 2aisles2longhaul

I think we are looking at this a little too simplistically. Especially surrounding BOS.
1. Why do this at all?
a) to preempt B6 - well yeah, as they starting for over a year, not surprised
b) to continue their #1 airline mantra (in terms of destinations not # of pax as B6 has that number hands down) - why not, if they can make money or attract pax to them at the expense of B6 or DY
c) to fill a gap in the market - this one to me is just as important as a), why? because DY have done very well at least in terms of loads (yields is a whole different ball game), and is plying a 344 seat 789 daily back and forth with 90%+ loads fro the T-100 data that's out there. However they won't expand on that I suspect because of their financial situation. Like they did with DUB, DL could see a gap in the market because of EI's success and expanded the market further, it also prevented potentially DY and B6 from entering that market too for similar reasons.
2) VS or DL..
a) DL metal would be good from a BOS POS because of their position there, but less so at LGW POS and would it make sense to do that for 1 flight per day? DL are building a bank of service on their own metal, AMS, CDG, LHR, DUB, LIS and EDI, so LGW would be a complement to that from their US customer standpoint along with their own facilities in A at BOS, which will allow for a departure time that works, and hopefully a slot at LGW that allows them to come back at the noon/1pm time that their other flights return (with the exception of AMS 2nd daily)
b) VS metal, VS is a good foil for DL in the UK market and has 2x daily to LHR and seasonal 3x weekly (if I recall) to MAN, so having another VS tail at the airport would sit nicely for building another piece of capacity. The issue for VS somewhat will be timing. DL can get away with a late evening departure from A, Space at E at the times VS would normally want their planes in town is exceedingly limited, This makes me lean more towards it happening on DL metal than VS.

I can't wait to see how this lays out.

LAX772LR wrote:

Cointrin330 wrote:

AA may also have inherited the TWA STL-LGW route, though I do not remember if AA actually operated it.

They did.

TW ops ended December 2001, STL-LGW ended November 2003.

STL remained one of the 29 approved LON gateways under Bermuda II, until that bilateral was dissolved. So AA could've resumed it at any point they chose.

Cointrin330 wrote:

UA hasn't had flights at LGW.

Not entirely true.

Prior to the PA takeover, UA ran frequent scheduled charters to LGW using 747s.
UA5880 was the flight number used throughout the '80s and early '90s.

I meant regular service. UA only entered scheduled TATL service in 1990 with flights from ORD and IAD to CDG and FRA. They added LHR in 1991 when they completed the acquisition of Pan Am's LHR slots. UA never had a full station at LGW. AA and DL did (along with US, CO, TW, NW, etc..)

Boeing74741R wrote:

Eirules wrote:

I’d be surprised to see UA go to LGW. There’s very little Star connections from LGW that can’t be reached via the big Star hubs of FRA, MUC etc and most of the point to point traffic would likely choose LHR over LGW.

I think those living in South London, Kent, Sussex and parts of Surrey will disagree with you on that point. Even for those living in Central London it might not make much odds going to LGW instead of LHR. I also don't think connections are the be all and end all of deciding whether to launch a route.

Good thread, interesting comments, and think it has legs in it, why? While there is no doubt most would always prefer LHR as their gateway into central LON for obvious proximity reasons, and naturally has the hub connectivity, as Boeing74741R says above there is a chunk of people across the South East of the UK who do and would prefer to use LGW for their J flights as its closer and easier, and not just for their summer holiday charters to Malaga. I for one use the CX flight a lot as a OW FF-and looking around me there is a lot of O&D in J, not just connecting onto BA’s ‘holiday destinations’. So why did CX add its sixth daily flight to LON at LGW rather than maybe convert one of its freight slots or pay $50mln for another pair at LHR? Because the area has become a spill over of London O&D in what is a prosperous area of the UK.

With LHR being full and more and more Pax every year going through LON, airlines have to look at where to add capacity, especially if we all believe in the frequency and point to point game over capacity/779 vs 380 debate. What most people are missing is that London is such a vast mammoth spread of geography with so many people that the locations of the airports are almost becoming O&Ds in their own right, rather than just viewing it as the city of London itself as one. EK are going a step further demonstrating the same at STN. My understanding is the BA JFK flight out of LGW is doing better than they thought it would and EK and QR are doing relatively fine as well.

Connectivity with VS could be an element, but the flights VS does out of LGW are not TATL destinations for connections, unless DL slowly massages the slot/destination portfolio to its needs as it has at LHR. More likely IMO it would be to challenge for the O&D from the South London, Sussex/Kent community who would normally be funneled through LHR.

I agree AA is unlikely, as they do seem to either go big at a place or go home, as is pointed out on numerous other threads. They are slowly leaving JFK for BA to dominate to LHR, but in turn had the domination of the ORD-LHR route (for OW) given to them. No one is saying LGW will ever become LHR but I think other legacy airlines will follow suit of the ME3, CX, adding some supplementary O&D capacity, especially those that already have multiple flights into LHR.

A return to delta at Gatwick? it would be good to see the AA and United not on was Gatwick before?