V-Flyer

In recent times many airlines have left Gatwick in favor of flights out of Heathrow, some include:

American - moved to LHR
Continental - moved to LHR (except single seasonal 757 flight to CLE)
Northwest - movind to LHR
Oman Air - movind to LHR
British Airways - reduced L/H and S/H services
Delta - Reduced from 5 to 3 daily services

However I can't work out why airlines prefer using Heathrow for some of there flights opposed to using Gatwick, it's not a long train service from London to Gatwick on the Gatwick express. Especially in the state of the ecomony at the moment wouldnt it be cheaper for airlines to use Gatwick opposed to Heathrow with the high prices of slots at Heathrow?, And the amount of conjestion at and around Heathrow. Wouldnt it help airlines with the cheaper prices of slots if they just switched to using Gatwick

The reason is that in the good old days instead of aircraft having the range to do L/H non stop they had to well, stop.

LHR became the primary hubs for the dominant LH carriers of the time, allowing ease of connections.

As such it was and still is the primary business airport for London. Being so allows for airlines to charge a premium over LGW on some routes that premium can be as high as 35%.

Also LGW's two runways are short(ish), they cannot (due to some knuckle head) be used at the same time and (due to some other knuckle heads)cannot be expanded for a few more years (2017 sound right?)

Now, CO, DL and NW moving to LHR from LGW is because of that and the fact that they were finally allowed to, with the Bermuda II treaty going away. Under Bermuda II only 4 airlines were allowed to fly from London to certain US cities directly, there airlines were BA, VS, UA and AA.

This is just a brief history, do a quick search on the history of the Bermuda II treaty.

The ban on expansion only applies to BAA though... once BAA sells the airport, the whole dance starts again with the citizens of West Sussex and Surrey.

S.

Also look at the geography.

LGW is only 'closer' to a TINY amount of the UK's land mass. For anyone coming in from West of London who's not in the 'bottom corner', LHR is quicker by far to get to. And yes, even despite the M25 (which you also get on the way to LGW).

While people do complain about 'getting to LHR', as someone who's done it very frequently from places west of London for a decade now, I can assure you I'd take LHR over LGW ANY day...

quote:Originally posted by preiffer
LGW is only 'closer' to a TINY amount of the UK's land mass. For anyone coming in from West of London who's not in the 'bottom corner', LHR is quicker by far to get to. And yes, even despite the M25 (which you also get on the way to LGW).

LHR's *so* much easier than LGW for me to get to - straight up the M5, straight down the M4, no M25 involved. Flew from LGW to Tunisia last year and the drive to/from LGW was a nightmare.

Of course, neither journey is really ideal as BRS is only 10 miles away from home, so I wholeheartedly support their expansion plans [:D]

Cheers
Michael

Just upgrade the road from the M5 to BRS.

quote:Originally posted by Darren Wheeler
Just upgrade the road from the M5 to BRS.

No need for me - through Yatton, Congresbury, Cleeve, back road through a forest and I'm there [:D]

Cheers
Michael

Funnily enough, I spent an hour driving to BRS to catch an EZY flight from there to BFS because it was less of a hassle than LTN. And LTN is supposedly closer to me. The only annoying part for me was the trip through Bristol City Centre...

S.

For LGW, I find the biggest balls ache is the M25. Last time I did a LGW flight was back from MCO and landed on a Monday morning. Due to some kind soul crash-testing their BMW into the barrier, it took me 3 hour to get to the M4. After an overnight flight, even in Upper, it's hardly an experience you need.

I think my M25 record to date was five hours from Gatwick to Heathrow due to roadworks, accidents etc - I too prefer to fly from LHR anyday.

It also have a more exotic feel. A true Gateway to the World. Rather than a Gateway to Torramolinos.

For me it doesn't really matter which airport it is, although I do leave extra time for LGW. I don't ever drive to the airport, I take the Airline bus from OXF. They stay in touch with their base and divert at the nearest opportunity.

S.

quote:Originally posted by Darren Wheeler
It also have a more exotic feel. A true Gateway to the World. Rather than a Gateway to Torramolinos.


ROFL

Very true.

As I have mentioned previously, LGW really does need to be making some active attempt to bring in new carriers. Sadly, whilst the BAA shackles are on, it seems that the airport is more interested in turning into a bigger version of Luton than attracting some decent high yielding loads.

Personally I wouldn't want to be the man (or woman) briefed with changing the attitude of some of the largest carriers in the world. THe problem is that LHR has the connections and importantly more high yielding passengers (apparently).

The trick in my view, is to try and connivence the prestige carriers that they can offer just as good a service at LGW as at LHR. This is not going to happen over night especially with limited runway space. LGW after all is the busiest single runway airport in the world (Scrooge is right there are 2 runways but one has been declassified as a taxiway).

Currently LGW seem to be doing a pretty good job at keeping a couple of bigish Middle Eastern Carriers at LGW but one has to wonder for how long, especially if they can get slots. Many non plane folk I know, do indeed believe that LGW is nicer as it less busy, easier to get in and out of (I mean the direct access roads) etc. And of course LGW is a pretty good airport from which to start a new international carrier, as all on this board know.

Things of course will get pretty interesting when Obama decides that the second part of Bermuda II agreements should come in force. That is when real changes in air travel will come into force. Although I am not holding my breath.

I much prefer LGW, if only for the easy of getting there for me.

Now I am wondering though, if Maxjet, EOS and Silverjet were to have started operations at LGW instead of Luton and Stanstead would any of them be around today ? and with the move of the big airlines to LHR could we see someone else try a LGW- NYC all J ?

A funny thing has happened to me the last two times I have flown from Gatwick.

One of the departure screens had frozen. So it appears to be reloading, but only when you actually look at a different departure screen can you see that actually your flight is moving up and the Gate announced. Now, that's not funny, that's inconvenient. What is funny is the attitude of the BAA staff when this was pointed out to them. On each occasion, they said 'It's not frozen, look the screen is reloading' and when I pointed out a nearby departure screen showed that a gate had been announced, whereas 'mine' showed Wait In Lounge, they said 'It's just been announced'. And when I took them back to the broken screen they said 'The gate must have been changed'.
Actually, that's not funny either.

There was a complete lack of concern or belief that the screen might be broken. In the end I just 'announced' to everyone in front of the screens that it was broken, and started a rush to the gates.

And that happened twice!

quote:Originally posted by Scrooge
I much prefer LGW, if only for the easy of getting there for me.

Now I am wondering though, if Maxjet, EOS and Silverjet were to have started operations at LGW instead of Luton and Stanstead would any of them be around today ? and with the move of the big airlines to LHR could we see someone else try a LGW- NYC all J ?


You could be onto something there Dave, although I wonder if Maxjet et al were put off by higher landing fees at LGW. Certainly that was something cited as a downfall for Oasis.

I would be interested to see how BA are doing on LGW-JFK at the moment at the front of the plane. I cannot believe there is no demand what so ever for J class travel ex LGW to the US?

If LGW realigns itself as a European hub, as BE suggested to the OFT BAA were doing, then surely there could be some demand for some North America bound flights bar the VS/DL/US ones and the odd Air Transat?

Look at the NYC area, EWR and JFK operate side by side, both with a good spread of international flights and, ISTBC, a very similar feeder route. Surely LGW and LHR can operate in a similar sort of way.

Dare I say it but maybe a B6/LH/EI type of relationship at LGW could help some of the long haul carriers out. Board EZY in say Posnan, or wherever, then connect at LGW? I cannot imagine anything worse than flying into LGW then having to jump on national express to connect at LHR.

Not being a high flier myself and only travelling for my hols once or twice a year I have to say that my first ever LHR experience was brillient, made all so easy because BMI fly in to LHR from LBA and then the HEX really is a godsend airport at one end and Paddington Hilton on the other. Pretty much seemless when everythings going to plan.

On the subject of ease of transfer to the City, surely Gatwick is ideal for business people heading into the square mile with the Gatwick trains serving London Bridge etc rather than having to sit on the Picadilly Line or using the Heathrow Express.

Yep, I think the all J airlines shot themselves in the foot with their airport choices, out of the US they should of gone for LGW rather than the outer airports.

Oasis, they shouldn't of flown here in the first place, way to much competition on the HKG-LON route, there was no way they could get the yields up high enough.

Heathrow will suffer due to it's design and layout. It was never meant to handle the vehicle traffic it does now. It's also handicapped by no mainline rail serviceas HEX is really just a high speed version of the tube going from Paddington.

quote:Originally posted by Darren Wheeler
Heathrow will suffer due to it's design and layout. It was never meant to handle the vehicle traffic it does now. It's also handicapped by no mainline rail serviceas HEX is really just a high speed version of the tube going from Paddington.


Won't the Crossrail project solve this and the square mile problem?[:?] OK it won't be completed until 2017.

Well yes, assuming it ever gets built...

There's also the detail of the Western end. Apparently it's going to be Maidenhead rather than the more logical (to me) choice of Reading.

I would have thought that Reading would make a lot more sense than Maidenhead!

quote:Originally posted by Tinkerbelle
I would have thought that Reading would make a lot more sense than Maidenhead!


Reading would make more sense!