You are here: Discussion  »  All airlines  » 

More international airlines should concentrate more on Gatwick

1 2  Next »


NewBAexec - 14/11/2011 08:45 BST

I believe since LHR is running at near 99% capacity, international airlines should consider moving some of their operations to LGW, being the second largest London airport and running at around 70% capacity.

We have seen recent operations move and some which will be starting in the near future such as Korean Air offering direct flight to Seoul, Vietnam Airlines offering direct flights to Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh, Air Asia X to KL and finally the latest addition being Air Hong Kong.

It would be a great opportunity for other airlines to have duplicate flights out of LGW. For e.g airlines such as Singapore Airlines, Cathay, Eva Air, Air China, Air India, Turkish Airlines, etc. This should be encouraged to give the customers a second option.

Gatwick has the capacity to expand tremendously and it is so frustrating to see that the government is not allowing it to happen. A second runway at Gatwick will definitely get a yes vote from me.

StephenLondon - 14/11/2011 08:56 BST

Sadly, a second runway at LGW didn't get a yes from the Government. And room-to-expand at LGW comes at off peak, and off off peak hours - hardly what many carriers want for their schedules. True, a few have been lured to LGW, thanks to GIP's 1.5B USD investment in the airport. I'm sure a few more will come in the future. A few years ago, MH announced additional services to LGW which never materialised.

Some of the carriers you listed above used to be at LGW (Cathay, for example - which operated LGW-CDG-HKG). Sadly, they couldn't make the money like they could at LHR, so off to LHR they went!

KE has an odd schedule at LGW, if you look at their press release, the a/c overnights on the ground, not the best way of making money.

You have some nice thoughts above, but sadly it'll take quite a bit for them to add services to a second airport in London, mostly high yield customers!

NewBAexec - 14/11/2011 08:58 BST

Another thing that amazes me is Iberia not having any operations in and out of LGW, which is supposedly BA's second largest hub. BA only flies to Malaga - No Madrid or Barcelona flights!

Is there any justification to this at all? Because I do not see any.

VintageKrug - 14/11/2011 09:03 BST

Not really.

While a move to the "hub without the hubbub" would be appreciated by many, there are issues with its location, the expense of getting there on public transport (a GEx rtn now costs nearly £30 in standard class), the scarcity of parking gates and lack of transfer facilities. Although the new owners are investing heavily to bring existing facilities up to standard, there is still a way to go to move beyond that with a master plan for the next quarter century.

This is an extract from the current master Plan, released in 2006:

At Heathrow, capacity can be increased by:

- banning private jets
- banning aircraft with capacity less than 120 passengers
- introducing Mixed Mode flying to make better use of runway capacity (already being trialled)
- improving European Air Traffic Control arrangements in other ways to reduce stacking
- using larger aircraft (777-300ER and A380)
- permitting super-silent aircraft to use the airport between midnight and 6am (e.g. 787)

At Gatwick:

The ban on a second "wide-spaced" runway (LGW already has a "close-parallel" second runway for alternate use only) at Gatwick is not government-related; it stems from a local agreement made with West Sussex County Council way back in 1979, and runs out in 2019.

GIP (LGW's owners) has already had plans approved to increase capacity by six million passengers between now and 2018; the new North Terminal BA Check-In annex is part of this investment.

LGW is moving towards being able to accept an A380 in regular operations (i.e. not from a remote stand), which will further increase capacity, and there has already been significant construction (without fanfare) of significant additional apron capacity which could presage the construction of a new terminal in the next few years, all in advance of a new runway.

NewBAexec - 14/11/2011 09:13 BST

Interesting for Gatwick...

NewBAexec - 15/11/2011 06:04 BST

Sri Lankan Airlines is looking to fly to Gatwick as well by the end of next year offering flights to Colombo via Male...

eejp1007 - 15/11/2011 15:14 BST

The Hong Kong Airlines flights to/from Gatwick look perfect. They are at the exact premium times that business travellers want and as it is an all business class service, as long as they can get the City peeps to travel to Gatwick instead of LHR, this should be a winner.

Does anyone remember the flight times of Oasis Hong Kong? I was wondering if someone had been keeping a hold of the slots until now.

LeTigre - 15/11/2011 15:59 BST

Here you go:

The flight timings are admittedly similar to HK airlines, hopefully HK airlines will not go the same way!

I think Garuda and maybe China Southern could be the next candidates for LGW service.

Plus Comair (BA Franchisee, and EC affiliate company) is planning on operating a Durban/Johannesburg to LGW using a newly acquired 767, this should be a big boost, perhaps there may even be some mutual transfer traffic between BA/Comair.

Scandinavian - 15/11/2011 16:15 BST

Norwegian has built up a nice business to and from Scandinavia and Finland from Gatwick in the past two to three years. It now operates to nine cities in the North from Gatwick, offering more direct routes to London than BA, SAS or Ryanair.

I assume that business travellers instinctively go for Heathrow but Norwegian's lower price and excellent product (new B737-800 with 787 interiors and wi-fi onboard) will get more travellers to test Gatwick. Additionally flights to and from Gatwick generally face less delays since the airport in less congested meaning less time spent circling London...

I am happy to use LGW now having tested it quite a bit in the last few months.

PS. Surprising to see Qatar drop Gatwick a few months ago.

- 15/11/2011 16:19 BST

I used to fly Gatwick a lot when TWA and AA used it. Much fewer delays and ATC is much zippier than LHR. Biggest problme was if there is a cancellation, you have to gte to LHR for another flight whereas LHR all you need do is change terminals ( getting to T5 may feel it takes almost as long but best I ever did was 1 hour 30 including picking up and dropping off avis car.

LeTigre - 15/11/2011 16:40 BST

Obviously, most of these airlines don't have interline booking agreements, but does anyone have experience in transiting at LGW?

Transfer traffic is an important factor in new routes, yet with LGW dominated by loco carriers like Easyjet, it is surely impossible to bet on good transfer volumes.

TominScotland - 15/11/2011 18:27 BST

Transfer from international to domestic at Gatwick North with BA is not much fun. Passengers have to exit to landslide and then return through security to catch their onwards flight. Why this is, I do not know - probably the cost of providing transit security for relatively low volumes.

KeaneJohn - 15/11/2011 19:57 BST

I have always associated LGW as a bucket and spade airport. The facilities in the South Terminal 6 or 7 years ago were abysmal. i used to live in Jersey so used LGW a lot and hated it.

As others have mentioned the cost of the train to Victoria (admittedly you can get slower trains a bit cheaper but try doing that in the rush hour either way with luggage!)

Also with more low cost airlines using the facility through ticketing was not possible and you ended up booking your connecting flights like in a game of Russian roulette.

A lot of airlines realise they can get more from Heathrow and more connecting passengers so its always going to be a poor mans alternative.

Tete_de_cuvee - 22/03/2012 18:40 BST

Following the compulsory divesting of LGW the new team certainly appear to be turning things around.

LGW used to have direct rail connections to Oxford, Birmingham, Manchester etc. as well as a premium express service into London. Over the past decade these have either deteriorated badly or have been withdrawn.

Hopefully this report will be the precursor to a huge boost for much needed LGW connectivity

- 22/03/2012 19:19 BST

I believe the instigation of a direct rail link between lgw and lhr would make it more attractive. The rails already exist with about 5 miles that might need electrification. It would not be HS3 but an easy connection with bags would increase attractiveness and lower aome costs, particularly if the cost was built into connection tickets. I believe a 20 minute frequency either non stop or with one stop at Clapham Junction would work. It would also increase public transport access to both airports. It also involves negligible expense and I am sure Beardy would snap it up having flights from both airports and a knowledge of trains

Bucksnet - 22/03/2012 19:23 BST

Rich, that is a stupid plan. Who is gonna fly into one airport, take the train, and then fly out of the other? They might as well just connect at AMS, CDG, FRA, MUC or any other airport where development is not being deliberately restricted by traitors in the government.

It's probably only really useful for Channel Islands flights and maybe a few other routes, but they should really be at an expanded Heathrow.

NTarrant - 22/03/2012 19:24 BST

Tete - the link comes up 404 not found and there is nothing on the BBC site for the last few days at least regarding LGW.

There are no CrossCountry services from LGW anymore, this has mostly been driven by delays from the Birmingham to Reading sections which compounded to make an unreliable service.

There still is a premium service to Victoria every 15 minutes non-stop. The problem at LGW is that unlike LHR you have a choice of either a 15-20 minute journey on LHR Express or Tube 45 minutes or coach at a simular amount of time. At LGW the saving in time is a matter of a few minutes and there is the issue of four paths that could continue to the south coast as patronage from the coast increases.

Bucksnet - 22/03/2012 19:28 BST

Try cutting and pasting this: -

- 22/03/2012 19:51 BST

Bucksnet I think some would, it would also make changing plans following delay or cancellation easier, it would aid public transport from Sussex, surrey, hampshire, wiltshire, dorset, devon and south and south west london. Additional the rails are already there so it is cheap and quick.

It would then make it easier to shift smaller planes (rj's and the like) Gatwick.

What is rolling stock on GE? I thought they had the Ex Wessex Electrics taht used to run to Weymouth? They were quite good on taht service.

NTarrant - 22/03/2012 19:51 BST

Thanks Bucksnet -

There is a lot of bunkem in what they say, except that the type of rolling stock is not that good. Probably why many people prefer to use the Southern and FCC 377's.

1 2  Next »


Delta B767-300ER Delta One

Delta B767-300ER Delta One

A review of the business class cabin onboard a Sunday flight from London Heathrow Terminal 4 to Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International
Read more »

New British Airways boss denies he will “Ryanair-ise” airline

New British Airways boss denies he will “Ryanair-ise” airline

No decision made on removing short-haul catering but BA needs to be more competitive
Read more »

Swiss A340-300 First Class

Swiss A340-300 First Class

A review of the service from Hong Kong to Zurich
Read more »