- Moderator
- #141
Wasn't Flybe more forced out of Gatwick than pulled out? I believe because of them putting up the charges for smaller aircraft?FlyBe pulled out of Gatwick and Virgin pulled out of Heathrow!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wasn't Flybe more forced out of Gatwick than pulled out? I believe because of them putting up the charges for smaller aircraft?FlyBe pulled out of Gatwick and Virgin pulled out of Heathrow!
Wasn't Flybe more forced out of Gatwick than pulled out? I believe because of them putting up the charges for smaller aircraft?
I'm sure I read somewhere that Manchester serves 18 domestic destinations. It trounces the London airports on connectivity at least in terms of destinations.
That is of course somewhat double edged as Heathrow and Gatwick will argue that they don't have the domestic feed due to runway constraints, a somewhat flaky response given that FlyBe pulled out of Gatwick and Virgin pulled out of Heathrow!
I'm not that sure the FlyBe ops put of Heathrow have been a success. There had been a zero clamour for further expansion and no pr puff pieces.
As I understand it, the slots are remedial (?) ones from the former BMI. I think BE can only sell them once they have used them for a period of time (4 years I think?) and that is the payoff for them, rather than any operating profit on the route.
I'm not that sure the FlyBe ops put of Heathrow have been a success. There had been a zero clamour for further expansion and no pr puff pieces.
They are 'leftover' from BMI yes, but I think the way it works is that when an airline acquires them they have to be used on domestic routes for a minimum of 5 years. After that the slots 'properly' become the airlines and they can use them however they wish.
It's the best connected airport in the UK by a country mile
"But hang on hasn't BA just canned 50% of LBA slots based on 50% load factors "
to see the latent demand is not there for tens of new regional routes
One of the NW runway scheme's fatal flaws is that it cannot be built in phases to account for growth, it must all be built (and therefore the capital expenditure incurred) in one go. This adds to the financial impossibility of delivering that particular scheme and why HHL seems now to be looking at cheaper alternatives including the Heathrow Hub proposal, together with a shorter runway further to the east (which would result in further property destruction). Each of these schemes would permit phased development.
I say considered analysis!
Yet there is demand from Manchester for more than 8 regional routes...?
It's about price point. I'd say LHR's fees are significantly higher than MAN's (now and in a future R3 scenario) and this makes a lot of routes uneconomical.
The domestic feed into Heathrow is all about supply and demand. Yes there is "probably" demand although the demise of Virgin Red and the BA LBA route doesn't exactly shout success, but as Dobbo says the critical element is the price point.
The only airlines who could make a go of it are RYR EZY BA and FlyBe if capacity becomes available , but then the landing fees will have to come down to make those routes work, but it's a contradiction because all the economic analysis suggests they will actually go up.
Subscribe to help support your favourite forum and in return we'll remove all our advertisements. Your contribution will help to pay for things like site maintenance, domain name renewals and annual server charges.