[Anonymous]

[LeTigre]

Hi,

Recently I have heard of several airlines who want to serve Heathrow, but could not obtain slots. These are: China Southern, Hong Kong Airlines, Hainan Airlines, Garuda Indonesia, Vietnam Airlines, and those are only the ones I can remember. Whilst some have obtained slots at Gatwick, this does not have the alliance driven transfer traffic that makes several new routes economically viable.

Which destinations are we Londoners missing out on due to lack of capacity?

[AMcWhirter]

Few carriers starting air service to the UK are fortunate enough to obtain LHR landing slots from day one. The trend is to begin service to LGW and then go on a waiting-list for LHR slots. Look at the examples of NZ, CX, EK, QR etc.

Interestingly, a guarantee of LHR slots can be made available when two countries sign an ASA. A good example here is China Eastern which served LHR right from the start, albeit from the then T2 as there wasn’t the capacity within T3 to handle its flights.

I wonder what opportunities there are for “alliance driven transfer traffic” ? BA and BD are the only domestic carriers flying into LHR but both are members of rival alliances. Would non-alligned HK Airlines interline with other carriers ?

Surely the likes of China Southern, Vietnam Air, Garuda etc would prefer to tap transfer traffic through the Skyteam hubs of AMS and CDG in preference to LHR.

[LeTigre]

“Surely the likes of China Southern, Vietnam Air, Garuda etc would prefer to tap transfer traffic through the Skyteam hubs of AMS and CDG in preference to LHR.” I agree with you there, it would make better sense, but actually both China Southern and Garuda have both publicly stated their intention to serve Heathrow.

[AMcWhirter]

True. But who could provide the transfer pax ? As I said above BA/BD are rival alliance carriers so they would not offer preferential fares for domestic connecting pax.

There is also the matter of awkward terminal transfers at LHR. Skyeam carriers use T4 whereas Star is at T1 and Oneworld is split between T5 and T3.

Why would other leading Skyteam members feed China Southern and Garuda with international pax at LHR when they can more easily do so through AMS and CDG ?

Bear in mind that China Southern’s main European destinations are AMS and CDG. One of these cities will receive this Chinese carrier’s A380 when it comes to Europe. Historically Garuda’s main European destination has been AMS.

[RichHI1]

From other threads, I have picked up that FRA is focusing on flights from Asia and China in particular. Whereas I can see the sense of transferring through LHR when traveling west to East or East to West, I cannot see pax wanting to fly from Asia to Eruope via UK as it involves redundant mileage.
Given the whole disaster of LHR overcrowding and the lack of UK transport policy, trying to get more carriers into LHR would appear counter productive.

[AMcWhirter]

RichHI1

Yes you are correct about FRA. But also look at AMS and see just how many cities in mainland China are now served. From LHR there are flights to only two cities in mainland China ; from AMS you can fly to six (not including HKG).

[RichHI1]

LondonCity, yes there is a gap there. My thinking though was that geographic location to an extent governs the specialization of routes by airport. It makes sense for MAdrid to focus on Latin AMerica, it makes sense for LHR to focus on North America. I guess FRA being to East of Europe it makes sense for Asia routes.
Providing a good service to the seondary cities on China really is an undertaking as there are many viable routes. But we see the CHinese carriers buying a380’s and going hub and spoke.

[Author]

Posts