The Telegaraph reports that protecting Heathrow slots may result in BA totally moving to Heathorow

Airline bosses have launched a review into concentrating the flag carrier’s operations at Heathrow, according to industry sources.
It is understood that the review of Gatwick follows an order from IAG, BA’s FTSE 100 parent company, which is fearful that it could lose lucrative take-off and landing slots at Heathrow.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... n-gatwick/

how many daily flight do BA fly per-covid?

fcogafa wrote:

The Telegaraph reports that protecting Heathrow slots may result in BA totally moving to Heathorow

Airline bosses have launched a review into concentrating the flag carrier’s operations at Heathrow, according to industry sources.
It is understood that the review of Gatwick follows an order from IAG, BA’s FTSE 100 parent company, which is fearful that it could lose lucrative take-off and landing slots at Heathrow.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... n-gatwick/

Its written by Ollie Gill, IAGs leaking sieve collector of information. So bound to be some truth in it.

Probably makes allot of sense in the near term, reducing there operating costs at the same. While it takes a couple of years for demand to build back up.

If BA wants back into LGW in the future, that wouldn’t be to hard.

LHR slots are definitely too valuable to lose…. They must be protected! LGW will not see a surge of other carriers rushing in to get a piece of the pie. Except someone like B6 might look to add a few flights from the US side

With the third wave building in the UK, probably the smartest thing they could do

FlyingElvii wrote:

With the third wave building in the UK, probably the smartest thing they could do

Great point! Makes even more sense…

The 3rd wave is not as bad as people make out in the UK. There has been no big rise in hospitalizations or deaths. If anything it has helped to drive more people to get vaccinated.

Back to BA and LGW... Reports like this have been on going since last year... nothing new in it at all. BA would be failing in its duty if it was not looking at ways to save cash. BA knows it will need its LGW slots when the recovery starts and as other airlines like Wizz have publicly stated they want to uncrease their LGW flights considerably IAG will not want to give up any slots at LGW

jomur wrote:

The 3rd wave is not as bad as people make out in the UK. There has been no big rise in hospitalizations or deaths. If anything it has helped to drive more people to get vaccinated.

Not only that but Tim Spector, epidemiologist at Kings College London and founder of the Zoe Symptoms app (and one of the only voices I trust that appears in the media regularly), says the current wave will peak in around a week or so and we will be back to low cases in a month. Back to the subject in hand though I completely agree that these discussions will be happening all the time; BA made a decision 12 months ago when things were really, really bad to retain a presence at LGW. Now that we’re on the cusp of an improvement it would be difficult to see why they would reverse that decision. The slot issue was still the same this time last year if not even worse as there was no prospect of a recovery in sight.

At some point the "Use it or loose it" slot requirements will come back in to force. If it comes down to keeping slots at Heathrow then routes will be moved from Gatwick. BA can demand higher fares and get better yields at Heathrow and will save money by closing down Gatwick. Will the operation at Gatwick generate enough money post covid when they are fighting against EasyJet and Wizz Air?

They were fighting against easyJet and Wizz before the pandemic and holding their own. The cost base at LGW SH was/is substantially lower.

As far as current BA flights at LGW, today Riga, Bilbao, Barcelona, Florence, Antigua and St Lucia are arriving/departing.

WW said last week that being spun off from IAG was not impossible, so sensible to look at all options
including ditching or wholly reforming what happens at Gatwick.

I don't know why BA persists with LGW as a full scale BA brand and didn't make it a LEVEL base and focus
on that type of market without trying to do that anyway using the "premium" (yes... well....) brand along with
the associated costs.

I ask these things because I don't know... but folks here seem to. In a general scheme is operating the
Gatwick holiday destinations (and other newer ones that only went from LHR) from LHR a feasible use of
slot value?

On the subject of IAG thinking, why does Iberia have an express division (separate crew to IB mainline)
and BA does not considering that it evidently has some core value to Iberia and IB mainline crews work to
much the same type of rostering, planning as BA crew do. BA Express or at any rate wholly leisure?

Stay well.

TFFIP wrote:

WW said last week that being spun off from IAG was not impossible, so sensible to look at all options
including ditching or wholly reforming what happens at Gatwick.

I don't know why BA persists with LGW as a full scale BA brand and didn't make it a LEVEL base and focus
on that type of market without trying to do that anyway using the "premium" (yes... well....) brand along with
the associated costs.

I ask these things because I don't know... but folks here seem to. In a general scheme is operating the
Gatwick holiday destinations (and other newer ones that only went from LHR) from LHR a feasible use of
slot value?

On the subject of IAG thinking, why does Iberia have an express division (separate crew to IB mainline)
and BA does not considering that it evidently has some core value to Iberia and IB mainline crews work to
much the same type of rostering, planning as BA crew do. BA Express or at any rate wholly leisure?

Stay well.

1, Level:

Because LGW is full of airlines like LEVEL, easyjet, TUI, earlier on there were Norwegian, Thomas Cook etc. Adding LEVEL will only throw yourself into a blood bath. What is the point? People choose BA because it is...er...the only image of a premium airline left within UK. Give them Level or Vueling people will go for easyjet in full scale.

Not only that, LGW also have a large premium customer base besides the perceived low cost consumers. Believe in it or not, BA's Caribbean network is one of the most profitable premium cabins in LGW's network. Using LEVEL's premium economy class alike premium cabin will kill the whole business. South coast in general is a posh (translation: well off, wealthy) area in England. Its premium O&D demand is strong. That is why BA still kept some First class routes in LGW during last round of aircraft reconfiguration.

2, Slot Value:
Leisure long haul route can certainly make money. Look at Las Vegas. It was originally a route from LGW, then BA successfully moved it to LHR before adding more LGW service due to availability of aircraft. Sure LHR has higher cost than LGW. But if you can sell few more First/Business class seats the difference in cost is covered. BA's Caribbean routes certainly makes money whether it is from LGW or LHR. The puzzle is to how to utilise available slots. When LHR slots were in full use, it is difficult for BA to run schedule with all LGW flights factored in. LGW has the right slot time for BA to run the routes at desirable time. LHR is different. To add LGW's Caribbean and Orlando flights into LHR, it may mean some of the European short haul will get cancelled or moved into later slot. That is a huge task to coordinate with airports, authorities and ATC. LHR slot is certainly too valuable to loose to BA. It is not only the price tag anywhere between £25-50 million per pair. It is also the whole picture that do not let competitor take advantages and gain more access. That part is priceless to BA.

3, BA Express:
BA forced Gatwick based crew to accept new terms through a host of tactics including closing down LGW operation. It closed quite few loss making short haul routes. It also spread rumours that Vueling will take over BA LGW short haul operations. The end result is that LGW based crew reluctantly accepted updated terms. So BA has no need to have a BA GO 2.0 (or as you call BA Express). Iberia was different. Iberia management decided Iberia Express was the only way out without major confrontation. Someone knows Iberia better might be able to tell you.

tso310 wrote:

As far as current BA flights at LGW, today Riga, Bilbao, Barcelona, Florence, Antigua and St Lucia are arriving/departing.

All of the shorthaul flights mentioned here are operated by Vueling and Air Baltic. There are currently no shorthaul operations from Gatwick.

concordeforever wrote:

At some point the "Use it or loose it" slot requirements will come back in to force. If it comes down to keeping slots at Heathrow then routes will be moved from Gatwick. BA can demand higher fares and get better yields at Heathrow and will save money by closing down Gatwick. Will the operation at Gatwick generate enough money post covid when they are fighting against EasyJet and Wizz Air?

EasyJet and Wizz do not fly long haul from LGW..

There is not enough room at LHR for all of BA flights in normal operations so they will need all of their LGW slots in the near future

JibberJim wrote:

And for all the rich suburbia of south west London equidistant between the two, for a family holiday, or any time you have lots of luggage, Gatwick is the preferred airport for many

But rich suburbia will go wherever. So if only available at LHR, they will not choose alternatives at LGW (even if there were any) and will travel to LHR. BA know this.
Shorthaul Airbus routes to euro sunspots charter-esque is less clear..

RexBanner wrote:

jomur wrote:

The 3rd wave is not as bad as people make out in the UK. There has been no big rise in hospitalizations or deaths. If anything it has helped to drive more people to get vaccinated.

Not only that but Tim Spector, epidemiologist at Kings College London and founder of the Zoe Symptoms app (and one of the only voices I trust that appears in the media regularly), says the current wave will peak in around a week or so and we will be back to low cases in a month. Back to the subject in hand though I completely agree that these discussions will be happening all the time; BA made a decision 12 months ago when things were really, really bad to retain a presence at LGW. Now that we’re on the cusp of an improvement it would be difficult to see why they would reverse that decision. The slot issue was still the same this time last year if not even worse as there was no prospect of a recovery in sight.

Well quite a bit has changed, no?

1. The use it or lose it requirement for slots is a lot more likely to be enforced now.
2. BA has lost millions more dollars between this time last year and now. This likely removes the ability to enact a lot of slot-saving options like running ghost flights and flying empty planes on their regular schedule.
3. It probably is a lot more clear now that demand is not going to return to pre-COVID levels in the near term.

by738 wrote:

JibberJim wrote:

And for all the rich suburbia of south west London equidistant between the two, for a family holiday, or any time you have lots of luggage, Gatwick is the preferred airport for many

But rich suburbia will go wherever. So if only available at LHR, they will not choose alternatives at LGW (even if there were any) and will travel to LHR. BA know this.

I certainly choose flights and will pay more for convenient airports - and that includes LGW with luggage, obviously if there are only flights from LHR to my destination I have no choice - how many destinations does that really apply to out of London?

Maybe Wizz can use the Gatwick slots then?

So if BA does not lay off its lower cost crew based at Gatwick, how exactly do they intend to integrate them at Heathrow when all the a/c and routes are being flown from the same place?

I thought the LGW cabin crew were flying the ex LGW routes out of LHR.
Perhaps someone can give a definite answer in this.?

Probably the early retirement of several BA aircraft made me think that BA should leave LGW. I have been thinking like this since this happen.

TUGMASTER wrote:

I thought the LGW cabin crew were flying the ex LGW routes out of LHR.
Perhaps someone can give a definite answer in this.?

No. There’s only about 500 Gatwick Cabin crew left and about 80% of those are still furloughed. The crew that are still operating are doing the remnants of the LGW long haul schedule so UVF, ANU, CUN, KIN and I can’t think of much else now that BGI has gone up the road to LHR and become winter seasonal at LGW. You may be thinking of the pilots who for a brief period at the end of the summer last year were operating our normal LGW routes from LHR. However now that we’re all officially Heathrow pilots that’s all come to an end.

I have read all the post regarding BA ops at LGW
why does BA not open a separate company to serve the leisure route different name but part of the IAG to compete with Easyjet and Wizz Air from the companies BA have swallowed up in the past why not bring back DanAir its a name the UK public no instead of Vueling or level.
back in 1990 when DA was taken by BA it had a great reputation for a high standard of service on itsLGW scheduled services.
still keep routes at Heathrow as premium leisure and offer a good quality alternative at LGW
if they drop the brand at lgw the cost-saving would be immense with crew and ground staff on different contracts to Heathrow.

tonyflyboi wrote:

if they drop the brand at lgw the cost-saving would be immense with crew and ground staff on different contracts to Heathrow.

Wrong. The cabin crew at LGW already earn less than their LHR counterparts and to be honest their salary is not far off minimum wage. The pilots are paycapped and many of the captains earn far less than an easyJet captain with the equivalent experience. The RHS used to be populated with many Future Pilot Programme (FPP cadets) who earned the square root of F*** all relatively speaking. Gatwick Ground Services was formed to outsource the ground handling and cut costs and post Covid they’ve had further haircuts. The point has already been made above that the savings have already made. LGW SH was already competitive with the low costs and in many cases exceeded it.

RexBanner wrote:

TUGMASTER wrote:

I thought the LGW cabin crew were flying the ex LGW routes out of LHR.
Perhaps someone can give a definite answer in this.?

No. There’s only about 500 Gatwick Cabin crew left and about 80% of those are still furloughed. The crew that are still operating are doing the remnants of the LGW long haul schedule so UVF, ANU, CUN, KIN and I can’t think of much else now that BGI has gone up the road to LHR and become winter seasonal at LGW. You may be thinking of the pilots who for a brief period at the end of the summer last year were operating our normal LGW routes from LHR. However now that we’re all officially Heathrow pilots that’s all come to an end.

My bad, that’s exactly who I was thinking of.
About time BA moved the LGW crew into mixed fleet, that surely would be a wage increase.?

BA needs to defend LHR slots over LGW slots. They'll play the legal game to try and keep LGW slots, but in the grand scheme, those slots are more expendable. In my opinion, long haul will take years to recover and that means a consolidation for now.

jomur wrote:

The 3rd wave is not as bad as people make out in the UK. There has been no big rise in hospitalizations or deaths. If anything it has helped to drive more people to get vaccinated.

Back to BA and LGW... Reports like this have been on going since last year... nothing new in it at all. BA would be failing in its duty if it was not looking at ways to save cash. BA knows it will need its LGW slots when the recovery starts and as other airlines like Wizz have publicly stated they want to uncrease their LGW flights considerably IAG will not want to give up any slots at LGW

Delta impacts travel policies for those in the UK. e.g., Italy put in a quarantine:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-57531054

Ireland doubles quarantine:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newslond ... NewsSearch

I could find other quarantines, but what matters is the prevelence of Delta impacts travel demand, in particular LGW based travel due to the hassle of quarantines.

Lightsaber
ps
The UK's hospitalization rate is low, but going up. As France and the UK have about the same population/economy I like to compare the two:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/curr ... ry=GBR~FRA

Coronavirus is unfortunately still having a negative impact on air travel.

The thing is, with all the staff culling since covid started if there was a sudden opening of flights and huge demand there wouldn't be enough staff to operate them all, even with ending the furlough program and bringing back those staff. So many have been laid off or forced in to "voluntary redundancy", that there would have to be a recruitment drive. BA cannot make anymore savings at Gatwick, they have already cut all the costs.

However, there are currently only four long haul destinations in operation anyway and no short haul. Who knows when it's all going to re-open. I think BA will cut and run, the need to protect the slots at Heathrow is more important. Leave the leisure to EasyJet and Wizz.

Say one pair of decent LHR slots are roughly $50m in good times.?
Do all the LGW routes contribute anywhere near that per annum…?
If no…. The answer is simple.
Remember, BA are currently in another cost saving measure, by furloughing all non-essential management, and only operating routes that generate a profit.

One question, where is the extra capacity for Vueling coming from for them to fly their existing network and all of a sudden start slot sitting (or replacing depending on your POV) BA’s LGW SH leisure programme? That’s a new AOC, new aircraft and all the associated capital expenditure for very little financial savings if any (certainly not after accounting for all the spend) just to be drawn into a SH bloodbath which they will inevitably lose to easyJet because of the latter’s infinitely greater brand recognition, reach and network. Whilst I don’t doubt that IAG may want to protect LHR slots the notion that another IAG airline is going to swoop in and save the day is fanciful at best. It would involve a hell of a lot of CAPEX which IAG do not have the facility for right now.

concordeforever wrote:

At some point the "Use it or loose it" slot requirements will come back in to force.

Agreed, but there is no evidence the regulator/slot controller would be unreasonable about it. Why wouldn’t the current slot waiver be extended further? it is currently due for review at the end of summer. It was last extended at the end of January. Traffic clearly is not going to recover any time soon, so carriers’ schedules will remain reduced. So another extension can only be the logical outcome.

My guess this is sabre-rattling by IAG in order to put pressure on Grant Schapps to extend the waiver.

vhtje wrote:

concordeforever wrote:

At some point the "Use it or loose it" slot requirements will come back in to force.

Agreed, but there is no evidence the regulator/slot controller would be unreasonable about it. Why wouldn’t the current slot waiver be extended further? it is currently due for review at the end of summer. It was last extended at the end of January. Traffic clearly is not going to recover any time soon, so carriers’ schedules will remain reduced. So another extension can only be the logical outcome.

My guess this is sabre-rattling by IAG in order to put pressure on Grant Schapps to extend the waiver.

No all airlines are for the waiver though. Wizz Air for example have spoken out against it and I would imagine if Gatwick is offered the choice between no flights but BA holding the slots or Wizz coming in and operating, they would take Wizz so they would probably also favour the waiver being dropped or at least reduced.

I don't believe that BA will leave LGW, although I do think they will downsize quite substantially. In an environment where traffic remains suppressed by Government policy, they have little choice. I don't see IAG using another brand at LGW, as BA is cost competitive and additional advertising costs are substantial. Post Brexit IAG does not, necessarily, have the right to a new UK AOC. They have been grandfathered their current BA and BACityflyer ones under the withdrawal agreement, however. The introduction of Vueling and LEVEL to new short haul markets has not gone well, so it could be a real mess.

IAG may take a gamble that they cannot afford to loose LHR slots as there would be little prospect of getting them back. That might not be the case at LGW where the slot situation is less acute and the apparent demand from new entry airlines less. Imagine if easyJet, Wizz or Ryanair got their hands on several hundred slots and T4? This was a real possibility with R3 and the reason BA are so adamantly opposed to it.

I was looking at some flight schedule, some of the traditionally LGW service (BA2xxx) are operating from LHR in July/August/September already.

For example, London Gatwick to Tenerife South, BA2664 and BA2730, are operating from LHR throughout the months I checked. This is besides the London Heathrow service of BA414
London Gatwick to LPA, BA2600, are from LHR.
London Gatwick to Malta, BA2646 and BA2644, are both from LHR.

So effectively on many days you have triple daily from London to Tenerife South and double daily service to Malta, all from Heathrow.

The same applies to Faro, LGW service BA2698 and BA2694, showing departure from LHR. On selected days there are also BA2682; BA2692 or/and BA2696, making it triple daily on selected days. Not only that, on one Monday I checked, there are BA2682 @ 07:20; BA2692 @ 08:20; [email protected]:10; [email protected]:15 and BA508 @ 08:40. Expect BA508 was a Heathrow service, all other 4 services were LGW service now depart from LHR. That is 5 flights for that day from LHR to Faro.

I checked PMI, BA2570 together with multiple LHR BA450 and BA496, all from Heathrow.

Alicante BA2630, BA2632, BA2636, BA2544...all from LHR instead of LGW.

Ibiza, BA2726. LHR.

Greek Islands, now in BA6XX series, all from Heathrow.

Paphos, a traditional LGW service with LGW flight numbers, BA2670 and BA2676, now all from LHR. LCA on another hand now 5 daily from LHR on selected days.

It almost felt that all LGW short haul are now in LHR.

seansasLCY wrote:

vhtje wrote:

concordeforever wrote:

At some point the "Use it or loose it" slot requirements will come back in to force.

Agreed, but there is no evidence the regulator/slot controller would be unreasonable about it. Why wouldn’t the current slot waiver be extended further? it is currently due for review at the end of summer. It was last extended at the end of January. Traffic clearly is not going to recover any time soon, so carriers’ schedules will remain reduced. So another extension can only be the logical outcome.

My guess this is sabre-rattling by IAG in order to put pressure on Grant Schapps to extend the waiver.

No all airlines are for the waiver though. Wizz Air for example have spoken out against it and I would imagine if Gatwick is offered the choice between no flights but BA holding the slots or Wizz coming in and operating, they would take Wizz so they would probably also favour the waiver being dropped or at least reduced.

True, but we're talking about BA needing to move flights from LGW to LHR because LHR slots are in danger - LHR slots being more valuable than LGW slots, so are in need protection. I'm arguing that if the waiver is extended, shutting down LGW won't be necessary for BA, i.e. BA can continue at LGW.

Wizz Air's (and FR's, who are also against the waiver) arguments are moot, at least insofar as the LHR slots, the decision about which must be made in the interests of the carriers and markets that serve & are served by LHR, not LGW.

Yes, Wizz Air and FR would love to get their hands on BA's slots at LGW, but that shouldn't be in input into the decision around extending the slot waiver at LHR.

vhtje wrote:

Yes, Wizz Air and FR would love to get their hands on BA's slots at LGW, but that shouldn't be in input into the decision around extending the slot waiver at LHR.

It certainly should, if companies are going to get a state subsidy, the whole market needs to be considered, and that includes wider competitors.

JibberJim wrote:

vhtje wrote:

Yes, Wizz Air and FR would love to get their hands on BA's slots at LGW, but that shouldn't be in input into the decision around extending the slot waiver at LHR.

It certainly should, if companies are going to get a state subsidy, the whole market needs to be considered, and that includes wider competitors.

For Companies like Wizzair that persistently flout the law in every imaginable way, use atypical employment practices, flags of convenience and have shown themselves recently to be a particularly nasty and unscrupulous bottom feeding employer? I’m all for the free market but not doing companies like these any favours whatsoever.

It would make sense whether BA would seek to reduce operations and only operate out of LHR. Any sign of that?

Can someone explain what the current split is between LHR and LGW? Is the split based on route type (leisure vs business) or destination, or demographics (more immigrants in South London?) or based on frequency that does not allow LHR to cover the demand.

Also, if consolidation going to be on LHR, do we then see BA fleet evolving to be more widebody centric should they only stick to LHR?

berari wrote:

Can someone explain what the current split is between LHR and LGW? Is the split based on route type (leisure vs business) or destination, or demographics (more immigrants in South London?) or based on frequency that does not allow LHR to cover the demand.

Also, if consolidation going to be on LHR, do we then see BA fleet evolving to be more widebody centric should they only stick to LHR?

Basically, Leisure vs Business nowadays, although there is (was) some O&D business that caters for those FF who live in South East/South London (think the JFK and YYZ services that were built out in 2018-19), but think of this as more population spillover convenience that worked out well given the mammoth geographical footprint London is. LHR is more desirable from a business perspective for O&D due to its proximity to London, and general wider geographical location for rest of UK catchment area (M4 Corridor, Midlands etc). Also with two runways, and thus more slots, obviously a better hub to build out of for BA than LGW. That said for a long time BA used to operate its South American routes from LGW rather than LHR for operational reasons, and while the Bermuda Agreement was in place, the other American carriers who didn't have rights to LHR used it as their gateway to London.

I agree with the above statement that this is partly to put pressure on the UK government to start moving forward opening up a little more sensibly now to pax. Govt doesn't need more people on the unemployment list and opening up the UKs borders is certainly overdue under sensible precautions, such as vaccinated travellers not having to quarantine etc. I do think things are serious at BA, there are some real signs now in plane deliveries etc, and hardly surprising given this has certainly rolled on longer than any of us imagined, but I would be shocked if BA dumped its LGW slots. It was only a few years ago that they paid £50Mln for the Monarch portfolio, the LGW operations work really well for BA cost-wise, the slots can be used as collateral with banks, and the big point-The UK is still pathetic at adding any infrastructure investment, let alone airport capacity, so slots will again be king extremely quickly when things get going. BA knows this, hence why they are trying to put pressure on the govt, with this and splitting out of BA from IAG, to get on with the necessary asap. W6 knows this, hence why they are trying to make the case to end the moratorium of slots and snatch a bunch before things get going. No other airport system in the world is as congested as London, so slots will always be king, and once lost will be difficult to get back in normal times. If you back London, as most of us do, and BA has no choice to, then dumping slots would be a crazy decision for BA imo.

I don't think Vueling would necessarily need an UK AOC for a LGW base - if all the destinations served were in the EEA (European Economic Area) they could use their existing Spanish AOC. Ryanair run most of their UK based operations under their Irish AOC and on the flip side, if it wasn't for COVID-19, Jet 2 may have had ALC and PMI bases this Summer under their UK AOC. AOC issues would only arise for Vueling if they wanted to do UK domestic or UK-non-EEA country (eg Morocco)

berari wrote:

Also, if consolidation going to be on LHR, do we then see BA fleet evolving to be more widebody centric should they only stick to LHR?

They were already headed that way as it is.

Compared to the gigantic USA and Chinese carriers, BA isn't a big airline by total fleet count (IINM, less than 260 total aircraft).
But also unlike those carriers, widebodies comprise nearly half its fleet.

They only had about 10 or so narrowbodies on order; their remaining orders, both pre-Covid and now, consist of 787-10s, A350-1000s, and 777-9s... not exactly tiny aircraft.

LAX772LR wrote:

They only had about 10 or so narrowbodies on order; their remaining orders, both pre-Covid and now, consist of 787-10s, A350-1000s, and 777-9s... not exactly tiny aircraft.

Didn't BA have a sort of MoU for 100 or so max from Boeing? And they were meant for Gatwick?


Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

oschkosch wrote:

Didn't BA have a sort of MoU for 100 or so max from Boeing? And they were meant for Gatwick?

It was IAG placing the order, for 200 MAX aircraft.... and while it's no doubt that a huge percentage of that would've gone to BA, no set numbers were made public (that I know of anyway) for what was planned to go to which airline.

Thing is, that transaction was announced more than two years ago, before the market went haywire, and still has yet to be firmed, so who knows what the actual outcome will be. I for one, hope they never take it. But doubt that'll happen either.

But it's not a firm order, so didn't count it.

[quote="j

EasyJet and Wizz do not fly long haul from LGW. [/quote]

I never said they did!

TUGMASTER wrote:

RexBanner wrote:

TUGMASTER wrote:

I thought the LGW cabin crew were flying the ex LGW routes out of LHR.
Perhaps someone can give a definite answer in this.?

No. There’s only about 500 Gatwick Cabin crew left and about 80% of those are still furloughed. The crew that are still operating are doing the remnants of the LGW long haul schedule so UVF, ANU, CUN, KIN and I can’t think of much else now that BGI has gone up the road to LHR and become winter seasonal at LGW. You may be thinking of the pilots who for a brief period at the end of the summer last year were operating our normal LGW routes from LHR. However now that we’re all officially Heathrow pilots that’s all come to an end.

My bad, that’s exactly who I was thinking of.
About time BA moved the LGW crew into mixed fleet, that surely would be a wage increase.?

Mixed fleet doesn’t exist anymore, all 3 Heathrow fleets were merged to create the “Heathrow Cabin crew team”

concordeforever wrote:

[quote="j

EasyJet and Wizz do not fly long haul from LGW.

I never said they did![/quote]

Maybe AbuDhabi in the future. That's the longest I can think of