Gatwick-3
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: .
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other than a return of the traditional Virgin beach routes and associated aircraft to Gatwick, I can think of two very different ways this could be accomplished:
1. Virgin taking over Delta's seasonal summer operation from Gatwick to JFK, replacing the old-clapped-out, 30+ years old Delta 767s with something more modern like an A330-900 neo.
2. Virgin taking over the Gatwick operation of Fly Norse together with their core fleet of nine 787-9s (they'd probably not want the additional three, smaller 787-8s Fly Norse operates for reasons of fleet commonality with Virgin's existing 16 787-9s).
Option 1 would be relatively easy to agree to for the Virgin management as it wouldn't involve a huge investment in a second London station and would grant RB his sentimental wish to see the airline return from where it started before completely retiring from "his baby". IMO, this option wouldn't even require reopening a Club House lounge at Gatwick, using another third-party lounge instead, such as the Emirates Gatwick lounge if Virgin were to resume operations from the North Terminal.
Option 2 would be an opportunistic investment, giving Virgin a sizeable Gatwick slot portfolio plus the aircraft to relaunch a proper, all-year round Gatwick operation of sufficient scale to be profitable, accommodating both a returning beach operation and selected other routes from the current Norse Gatwick route portfolio, such as JFK, MIA and LAX for example, with JFK and MIA probably served year-round and LAX in summer, replaced with something like CPT/ DUR / MRU / SEZ / CMB or even BKK / HKT in winter, i.e., to anywhere where there is sufficient P2P traffic in the Greater London area and the wider South-east, obviating the need for connecting traffic. And if Virgin still wants connecting traffic for beach traffic from other parts of the UK, they could always funnel this via Manchester as MAN actually flies to more places within the UK and the Republic of Ireland than LHR. Further in this connection, an acquisition of Fly Norse with their core 787-9 fleet could also assist streamlining Virgin's fleet as follows:
LHR all-Airbus
LGW&MAN all-Boeing.
Lastly, IMO, option 2 actually wouldn't even require re-opening a Clubhouse lounge as Virgin has no Clubhouse in MAN either despite their year-round presence there.
1. Virgin taking over Delta's seasonal summer operation from Gatwick to JFK, replacing the old-clapped-out, 30+ years old Delta 767s with something more modern like an A330-900 neo.
2. Virgin taking over the Gatwick operation of Fly Norse together with their core fleet of nine 787-9s (they'd probably not want the additional three, smaller 787-8s Fly Norse operates for reasons of fleet commonality with Virgin's existing 16 787-9s).
Option 1 would be relatively easy to agree to for the Virgin management as it wouldn't involve a huge investment in a second London station and would grant RB his sentimental wish to see the airline return from where it started before completely retiring from "his baby". IMO, this option wouldn't even require reopening a Club House lounge at Gatwick, using another third-party lounge instead, such as the Emirates Gatwick lounge if Virgin were to resume operations from the North Terminal.
Option 2 would be an opportunistic investment, giving Virgin a sizeable Gatwick slot portfolio plus the aircraft to relaunch a proper, all-year round Gatwick operation of sufficient scale to be profitable, accommodating both a returning beach operation and selected other routes from the current Norse Gatwick route portfolio, such as JFK, MIA and LAX for example, with JFK and MIA probably served year-round and LAX in summer, replaced with something like CPT/ DUR / MRU / SEZ / CMB or even BKK / HKT in winter, i.e., to anywhere where there is sufficient P2P traffic in the Greater London area and the wider South-east, obviating the need for connecting traffic. And if Virgin still wants connecting traffic for beach traffic from other parts of the UK, they could always funnel this via Manchester as MAN actually flies to more places within the UK and the Republic of Ireland than LHR. Further in this connection, an acquisition of Fly Norse with their core 787-9 fleet could also assist streamlining Virgin's fleet as follows:
LHR all-Airbus
LGW&MAN all-Boeing.
Lastly, IMO, option 2 actually wouldn't even require re-opening a Clubhouse lounge as Virgin has no Clubhouse in MAN either despite their year-round presence there.
I could be wrong but I can't see Virgin ever looking to buy Norse. Aviation history is littered with loss making airlines buying loss making airlines in the hope that somehow integrating them together would turn things around. History shows us that usually it just exacerbates a demise.
I could be wrong but I can't see Virgin ever looking to buy Norse. Aviation history is littered with loss making airlines buying loss making airlines in the hope that somehow integrating them together would turn things around. History shows us that usually it just exacerbates a demise.
My particular observation with LGW ops at the moment is the Terminal allocation amongst airlines. Most of us will remember the reshuffle of EZY, BA and indeed Virgin when they were part of the puzzle back in 2016/17.
Now there's EZY once again with about 8-9 aircraft overnighting in the South Terminal whilst TUI also have a split operation with about that same number based in the North.
From what I can gather it seems most EZY South Terminal departures operate generally later in the first wave period, and again mid-afternoon, which is when TUI also generally operate. On the face of it would seem reasonably achievable to move all TUI to the South and once again consolidate EZY North, even if it means a couple of other smaller Gatwick operators might have to move around it.
I know EZY are leasing slots from other South Terminal operators (mostly BA) so that may help explain partly why they are there, but it still seems a bizarre set-up.
Where easyJet is leasing slots from BA, those slots have to remain in South Terminal to ensure that terminal passenger throughput capacity remains attached to the slots for when they are returned to BA. It's unlikely that any residual easyJet operation in South will be necessary once those slots are returned - particularly so if Virgin also serve notice to reclaim some of the slots that they've had on lease to easyJet since 2008. In the meantime, if easyJet had moved the slots to North, they might not be able to move them back to South again when the time comes for them to be given back to BA.
The wider question actually becomes what the future size and shape of the easyJet operation at Gatwick will look like once the leased slots have gone back to their various owners. Three more aircraft's worth of slots go back to BA for 2025 and the last two for Summer 2026. One suspects that some of the current levels of frequency on shorter routes with the A319s such as three LGW-Nice flights on Wednesday mornings within two hours and two Rhodes departures on Thursday mornings 40 minutes apart will become a thing of the past, with A320s and 321s used to maintain seat capacity.
The wider question actually becomes what the future size and shape of the easyJet operation at Gatwick will look like once the leased slots have gone back to their various owners. Three more aircraft's worth of slots go back to BA for 2025 and the last two for Summer 2026. One suspects that some of the current levels of frequency on shorter routes with the A319s such as three LGW-Nice flights on Wednesday mornings within two hours and two Rhodes departures on Thursday mornings 40 minutes apart will become a thing of the past, with A320s and 321s used to maintain seat capacity.
The following 3 users liked this post by Flightrider:
1. Virgin taking over Delta's seasonal summer operation from Gatwick to JFK, replacing the old-clapped-out, 30+ years old Delta 767s with something more modern like an A330-900 neo.
2. Virgin taking over the Gatwick operation of Fly Norse together with their core fleet of nine 787-9s (they'd probably not want the additional three, smaller 787-8s Fly Norse operates for reasons of fleet commonality with Virgin's existing 16 787-9s).
a proper, all-year round Gatwick operation of sufficient scale to be profitable,
And as for jetBlue's new strategy, they're NYC's local airline, based at JFK. They shouldn't need 5 x daily heavies in market to be competitive. Delta only fly JFK-LHR twice daily, albeit alongside VS and one of them is only a B764.
Gatwick needs a bespoke solution for it's own place in the London market, every time they keep trying to be a mini LHR it doesn't end well And to be fair, I think the management team are well aware of that.
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Italy
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VS' potential return to London Gatwick
Even if VS' are about to do a U-turn and reopen LGW as a base, going forwards, where would they be accommodated, terminal-wise? Much has changed at Gatwick since they left in May 20', and terminal and gate space is now more limited than it previously was, both for North and South Terminals. On that note, assuming they were to take back their slots currently leased by EZY in the South Terminal, I think it would be a struggle for a VS operation to co-exist alongside BA's far larger operation in the same terminal (their old home base before the 2017 move to the North Terminal). I was speaking with a friend of mine who works at VS, and apparently Virgin were against the idea of having to move to the North Terminal, as they were happy with their long established base and clubhouse in the South Terminal. Plus there would also be the issue of lounge space limitations, as I'm guessing VS would want some sort of lounge for Upper Class passengers to use. Again, difficult to see where/how this could be accommodated given that the space that was once VS' clubhouse is now occupied by BA.
I also don't foresee a scenario where TUI would relocate their entire operation to the South Terminal for similar reasons to those above. Am I right in thinking that TUI (or Thomson as it was known then) were originally based in the South Terminal before relocating to the North in the 2000's?
I also don't foresee a scenario where TUI would relocate their entire operation to the South Terminal for similar reasons to those above. Am I right in thinking that TUI (or Thomson as it was known then) were originally based in the South Terminal before relocating to the North in the 2000's?
Last edited by JW95; 11th Jun 2024 at 20:59.
[QUOTE=JW95;11674390]Even if VS' are about to do a U-turn and reopen LGW as a base, going forwards, where would they be accommodated, terminal-wise? Much has changed at Gatwick since they left in May 20', and terminal and gate space is now more limited than it previously was, both for North and South Terminals. On that note, assuming they were to take back their slots currently leased by EZY in the South Terminal, I think it would be a struggle for a VS operation to co-exist alongside BA's far larger operation in the same terminal (their old home base before the 2017 move to the North Terminal). I was speaking with a friend of mine who works at VS, and apparently Virgin were against the idea of having to move to the North Terminal, as they were happy with their long established base and clubhouse in the South Terminal. Plus there would also be the issue of lounge space limitations, as I'm guessing VS would want some sort of lounge for Upper Class passengers to use. Again, difficult to see where/how this could be accommodated given that the space that was once VS' clubhouse is now occupied by BA.
I also don't foresee a scenario where TUI would relocate their entire operation to the South Terminal for similar reasons to those above. Am I right in thinking that TUI (or Thompson as it was known then) were originally based in the South Terminal before relocating to the North in the 2000s?
My good friend nice post but I expected more from you.
I'm sure that you are aware that it was THOMSON rather than THOMPSON. I never imagined your good self making such a school boy error 😕
Thomson.Corp was the name of the Canadian owners prior to the company being sold to the German company Preussag AG in 2000. Thomson was rebranded as TUI AG in 2002. At the same time Britannia Airways was also rebranded as Thomsonfly. The Thomson Travel brand ceased in 2017.
On a side note.....Thomson Corporation is a major Canadian publisher and was the company behind the publication of the OAG, Official Airlines Guide.
Britannia Airways started operating from London Gatwick in the late sixties. Obviously LGW had just the one terminal at the time.
Thomson or Britannia Airways as it was then known as, moved from the South to North Terminal in around 2000 or even 1999. I know that Britannia Airways was at the North Terminal for several years before they were rebranded to Thomsonfly and then later on as TUI.
Regarding the split terminal situation with easyjet.
Once the extension to Pier 6 is finally completed this should allow for at least an extra 8 gates or so to the North Terminal. The area where the construction is planned is currently blocked off. Hopefully full construction of the long awaited Pier 6 extension will commence as planned for later this year.
I also don't foresee a scenario where TUI would relocate their entire operation to the South Terminal for similar reasons to those above. Am I right in thinking that TUI (or Thompson as it was known then) were originally based in the South Terminal before relocating to the North in the 2000s?
My good friend nice post but I expected more from you.
I'm sure that you are aware that it was THOMSON rather than THOMPSON. I never imagined your good self making such a school boy error 😕
Thomson.Corp was the name of the Canadian owners prior to the company being sold to the German company Preussag AG in 2000. Thomson was rebranded as TUI AG in 2002. At the same time Britannia Airways was also rebranded as Thomsonfly. The Thomson Travel brand ceased in 2017.
On a side note.....Thomson Corporation is a major Canadian publisher and was the company behind the publication of the OAG, Official Airlines Guide.
Britannia Airways started operating from London Gatwick in the late sixties. Obviously LGW had just the one terminal at the time.
Thomson or Britannia Airways as it was then known as, moved from the South to North Terminal in around 2000 or even 1999. I know that Britannia Airways was at the North Terminal for several years before they were rebranded to Thomsonfly and then later on as TUI.
Regarding the split terminal situation with easyjet.
Once the extension to Pier 6 is finally completed this should allow for at least an extra 8 gates or so to the North Terminal. The area where the construction is planned is currently blocked off. Hopefully full construction of the long awaited Pier 6 extension will commence as planned for later this year.
Stands are not such a pressing issue, 1st wave bussing was once more common than it is now. They just prioritise the long hauls on the piers and bus the 1st wave short hauls from the remotes. So they process the passengers through the relevant terminals and bus to wherever, and LGW now has more remote stands with the 200s. So I wouldn't imagine parking would be a deal breaker just yet? South has 16 on pier heavy stands, 31-38 and 13-27 odd nos, so with 12 based BA B777s, say 5 Norse B789 and 5 VS Airbuses per day (hypothetical), there's some wriggle room as they're not all on the deck at once. It's tight but not impossible?
I still can't process BA not being in their old home, and back in their old-old home ! 🙂
Remember GATWICK need to drive volume off the back of the runway re-alignment and capacity increase, and also bussing was common on BA when they had the "Hub without the hubbub" base. A way would be found if Virgin wanted back, I just don't think it makes sense for them given where we are right now.
I still can't process BA not being in their old home, and back in their old-old home ! 🙂
Remember GATWICK need to drive volume off the back of the runway re-alignment and capacity increase, and also bussing was common on BA when they had the "Hub without the hubbub" base. A way would be found if Virgin wanted back, I just don't think it makes sense for them given where we are right now.
Last edited by Skipness One Foxtrot; 11th Jun 2024 at 22:22.
LGW Winter 24-25 slot coordination report
Both Kenya Airways and Xiamen Airlines have been awarded all the Gatwick slots they applied for for the forthcoming 2024-25 winter season. While nothing may come of it, interesting nonetheless.
And Air Peace have been awarded all the Gatwick slots they applied for winter 2024-25 as well. Hopefully, this will shut up the airline's founder / CEO.
The following users liked this post:
RE: JetBlue going seasonal, according to management there the demand was "OK" but delays in getting engines and therefore a proper fleet complement for the schedule meant LGW was indeed low hanging fruit but expect a return in W25-26. Operating A321-neos (non LR) isn't really sustainable and that needs to be sorted on TATL ops.
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Italy
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Sotonsean;11674491]
I'm mortified I made that mistake yesterday, was feeling very tired from work and feel embarrassed I didn't spot that at the time 
Sorry buddy, definitely a school boy error on my part!
Even if VS' are about to do a U-turn and reopen LGW as a base, going forwards, where would they be accommodated, terminal-wise? Much has changed at Gatwick since they left in May 20', and terminal and gate space is now more limited than it previously was, both for North and South Terminals. On that note, assuming they were to take back their slots currently leased by EZY in the South Terminal, I think it would be a struggle for a VS operation to co-exist alongside BA's far larger operation in the same terminal (their old home base before the 2017 move to the North Terminal). I was speaking with a friend of mine who works at VS, and apparently Virgin were against the idea of having to move to the North Terminal, as they were happy with their long established base and clubhouse in the South Terminal. Plus there would also be the issue of lounge space limitations, as I'm guessing VS would want some sort of lounge for Upper Class passengers to use. Again, difficult to see where/how this could be accommodated given that the space that was once VS' clubhouse is now occupied by BA.
I also don't foresee a scenario where TUI would relocate their entire operation to the South Terminal for similar reasons to those above. Am I right in thinking that TUI (or Thompson as it was known then) were originally based in the South Terminal before relocating to the North in the 2000s?
My good friend nice post but I expected more from you.
I'm sure that you are aware that it was THOMSON rather than THOMPSON. I never imagined your good self making such a school boy error 😕.
I also don't foresee a scenario where TUI would relocate their entire operation to the South Terminal for similar reasons to those above. Am I right in thinking that TUI (or Thompson as it was known then) were originally based in the South Terminal before relocating to the North in the 2000s?
My good friend nice post but I expected more from you.
I'm sure that you are aware that it was THOMSON rather than THOMPSON. I never imagined your good self making such a school boy error 😕.
Sorry buddy, definitely a school boy error on my part!Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Italy
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VS
Stands are not such a pressing issue, 1st wave bussing was once more common than it is now. They just prioritise the long hauls on the piers and bus the 1st wave short hauls from the remotes. So they process the passengers through the relevant terminals and bus to wherever, and LGW now has more remote stands with the 200s. So I wouldn't imagine parking would be a deal breaker just yet? South has 16 on pier heavy stands, 31-38 and 13-27 odd nos, so with 12 based BA B777s, say 5 Norse B789 and 5 VS Airbuses per day (hypothetical), there's some wriggle room as they're not all on the deck at once. It's tight but not impossible?
I still can't process BA not being in their old home, and back in their old-old home ! 🙂
Remember GATWICK need to drive volume off the back of the runway re-alignment and capacity increase, and also bussing was common on BA when they had the "Hub without the hubbub" base. A way would be found if Virgin wanted back, I just don't think it makes sense for them given where we are right now.
I still can't process BA not being in their old home, and back in their old-old home ! 🙂
Remember GATWICK need to drive volume off the back of the runway re-alignment and capacity increase, and also bussing was common on BA when they had the "Hub without the hubbub" base. A way would be found if Virgin wanted back, I just don't think it makes sense for them given where we are right now.
- A major USP for Virgin has always been their Club Houses, and they maintained one in the South Terminal for many years (nowadays the British Airways club and first lounge) before relocating to the North Terminal. I'm sure they'd want to have one at LGW again should they decide on returning, but where would it go, seeing as lounge space in the South Terminal is at a premium?
- Where would they be accommodated at check in? Again, they were historically stationed in Zone A of the South Terminal (now BA's of course, along with Zone C, and they won't move, thats for sure).
[QUOTE=JW95;11675209]
I have to admit I was very surprised when I had initially read it but I'll take your undisputed apology bud 😉
I noticed you had edited it and deleted the P which is good but those other than ourselves who read this won't have a clue what we're going on about.
I noticed you had edited it and deleted the P which is good but those other than ourselves who read this won't have a clue what we're going on about.
[QUOTE=Sotonsean;11674491]
Thats not really correct… Britannia/Thomson always were in South terminal. Air 2000/First Choice were in North terminal. When the airlines merged in 2007 they moved their merged operation into the North terminal shortly afterwards.
A few years later a South terminal operation was reopened, due to expansion using aircraft and slots from Norwegian. After Norwegian shut down their UK short haul operation TUI retained the slots, which remained attached to the South terminal for capacity reasons. They have continued to be operated by wetlease airlines, Titan and Ascend Airways this summer. Flights operating from North have regular TOM flight numbers, while flights departing from South continue to be identified with the BY code, as has been the case since operated by Norwegian.
Britannia Airways started operating from London Gatwick in the late sixties. Obviously LGW had just the one terminal at the time.
Thomson or Britannia Airways as it was then known as, moved from the South to North Terminal in around 2000 or even 1999. I know that Britannia Airways was at the North Terminal for several years before they were rebranded to Thomsonfly and then later on as TUI.
Regarding the split terminal situation with easyjet.
Once the extension to Pier 6 is finally completed this should allow for at least an extra 8 gates or so to the North Terminal. The area where the construction is planned is currently blocked off. Hopefully full construction of the long awaited Pier 6 extension will commence as planned for later this year.
Thomson or Britannia Airways as it was then known as, moved from the South to North Terminal in around 2000 or even 1999. I know that Britannia Airways was at the North Terminal for several years before they were rebranded to Thomsonfly and then later on as TUI.
Regarding the split terminal situation with easyjet.
Once the extension to Pier 6 is finally completed this should allow for at least an extra 8 gates or so to the North Terminal. The area where the construction is planned is currently blocked off. Hopefully full construction of the long awaited Pier 6 extension will commence as planned for later this year.
A few years later a South terminal operation was reopened, due to expansion using aircraft and slots from Norwegian. After Norwegian shut down their UK short haul operation TUI retained the slots, which remained attached to the South terminal for capacity reasons. They have continued to be operated by wetlease airlines, Titan and Ascend Airways this summer. Flights operating from North have regular TOM flight numbers, while flights departing from South continue to be identified with the BY code, as has been the case since operated by Norwegian.
Downwind_Left
To be totally honest I could have sworn that Britannia Airways moved from the South Terminal to the North Terminal a few years before they merged with First Choice. I was always under the impression that Britannia Airways had moved terminals several years before the merger with First Choice.
I stand corrected by the fact that you state that it was in 2007 after the merger with First Choice that Britannia Airways moved from the South to the North Terminal.
I'm that sort of person who totally accepts any mistakes as you always learn from them
But to be fair I don't make many, although I do believe that it's the second mistake I've made here on pprune in the past week
I stand corrected by the fact that you state that it was in 2007 after the merger with First Choice that Britannia Airways moved from the South to the North Terminal.
I'm that sort of person who totally accepts any mistakes as you always learn from them
But to be fair I don't make many, although I do believe that it's the second mistake I've made here on pprune in the past week
Britannia LGW presence
[QUOTE=Sotonsean;11674491]If my memory is correct, Britannia opened a base at Gatwick in 1982. The airline may have flown from the airport back in the 1960s itself, but with away-based aircraft and crew.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ballymena
Posts: 1,445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turkish Airlines has gone to 4 flights a day on some days and the new flight has a departure time around 4.00pm. From September that moves to a 10.30pm departure. Is this the start of TK building a better spread of departure times ex Lgw, bearing in mind they seem to have acquired extra slots for this winter?
Also Ethiopian going daily from the start of December.
Also Ethiopian going daily from the start of December.
[QUOTE=FlyGatwick;11675383]
In my previous post I wasn't referring to in any way the year that Britannia Airways set up a base at LGW. All I did was make a comment regarding Britannia Airways initially started operations at LGW in the late sixties. This comment was related to the terminal move which came much later.
Regardless of the fact that Britannia Airways didn't originally set up a base their Britannia aircraft were common place at LGW for a several years before the airline received it's first Boeing 737-200. And many more years before the airline set up an actual base at LGW.
Regardless of the fact that Britannia Airways didn't originally set up a base their Britannia aircraft were common place at LGW for a several years before the airline received it's first Boeing 737-200. And many more years before the airline set up an actual base at LGW.
Last edited by Sotonsean; 13th Jun 2024 at 23:22.
Children near Amsterdam airport use inhalers more, study finds
As the public hearings for London Gatwick airport’s northern runway resume, researchers from the Netherlands have found greater inhaler use in children living near Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport.