Jump to content

Airport.


Billy kettlefish

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, NoTailT said:

I'd rather see one of them 3x than the current split across two. Truth is the Heathrow timings aren't great for most trips I've needed. Last few times I've flown to City and lugged across to Heathrow, which isn't a bad trip on the trains.

I imagine Loganair will naturally want to hold their ground on Heathrow. But I'd sooner see them add a 3rd daily City, ditch Heathrow, and let Flybe crucify themselves on Heathrow. OR we work with Cityflyer for the overnight stopper often talked about in the past and encourage Loganair to open up new routes instead of City at start/end of day with the midday flight to LCY op by Loganair on the BA codeshare.

I still miss the Saab 2000.

Do you seriously believe the London market can sustain two EasyJets and four 78 seater flights into City and Heathrow? Also Cityflyer now only operate Embraer 190s which have 98 seats in comparison to Embraer 170s ( 76 seats ) that they operated when they were looking at night stopping . Sadly the London market is not big enough as it is especially as so many people seem to sing the virtues of EasyJet even when there is a lot to say about them ! And yes the Saab 2000 was a fantastic plane . 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, IOM said:

Do you seriously believe the London market can sustain two EasyJets and four 78 seater flights into City and Heathrow? Also Cityflyer now only operate Embraer 190s which have 98 seats in comparison to Embraer 170s ( 76 seats ) that they operated when they were looking at night stopping . Sadly the London market is not big enough as it is especially as so many people seem to sing the virtues of EasyJet even when there is a lot to say about them ! And yes the Saab 2000 was a fantastic plane . 

Hence I suggested Flybe hang themselves on Heathrow, Loganair x3 daily to City and easy to Gatwick 1/2 daily as suits their timetables.

I seem to recall Cityflyer only ever having a handful of E170's anyway. Overnight Cityflyer would be IOM-LCY in AM (no inbound) and LCY-IOM in PM (no return) with a complemented 1x Loganair ATR in middle of day and Loganair use the ATR elsewhere for us in the AM and PM.

Loganair and BA have the existing relationship. A bunfight on Heathrow isn't going to end well, you and I both know that. Flybe will happily hemmorage cash to preserve their slots and Loganair may be the first to give it up. Maybe.

Sustainability is key. Hence I also said I don't get why Loganair are spreading across two London airports, I'd sooner see one operator (be it Logan or otherwise) commit to x3 daily somewhere in London.

Edited by NoTailT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, NoTailT said:

I'd rather see one of them 3x than the current split across two. Truth is the Heathrow timings aren't great for most trips I've needed. Last few times I've flown to City and lugged across to Heathrow, which isn't a bad trip on the trains.

I imagine Loganair will naturally want to hold their ground on Heathrow. But I'd sooner see them add a 3rd daily City, ditch Heathrow, and let Flybe crucify themselves on Heathrow. OR we work with Cityflyer for the overnight stopper often talked about in the past and encourage Loganair to open up new routes instead of City at start/end of day with the midday flight to LCY op by Loganair on the BA codeshare.

I still miss the Saab 2000.

I think the LHR flights are codeshared with EK, BA and maybe QR and can be booked direct with IOM as starting  destination on the partners site ( EK/ QR/BA etc )

The LHR timings seem to be set up with a connection in mind when you look at the time of the next flight.

 

I still don't think  loganair /EK  interline baggage at LHR but booking  loganair/ BA seems to work 

Edited by mad_manx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, mad_manx said:

I think the LHR flights are codeshared with EK, BA and maybe QR and can be booked direct with IOM as starting  destination on the partners site ( EK/ QR/BA etc )

The LHR timings seem to be set up with a connection in mind when you look at the time of the next flight.

 

I still don't think  loganair /EK  interline baggage at LHR but booking  loganair/ BA seems to work 

The bags don't connect at Heathrow last time I tried that. There's no logistical connection between the terminals in which Loganair arrives and BA departs, I was told it just isnt compatible with the BA baggage system at T5 (bulk vs containerised). I'm happy to stand corrected if it now works. But yes you can book a through ticket.

Edited by NoTailT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NoTailT said:

Hence I suggested Flybe hang themselves on Heathrow, Loganair x3 daily to City and easy to Gatwick 1/2 daily as suits their timetables.

I seem to recall Cityflyer only ever having a handful of E170's anyway. Overnight Cityflyer would be IOM-LCY in AM (no inbound) and LCY-IOM in PM (no return) with a complemented 1x Loganair ATR in middle of day and Loganair use the ATR elsewhere for us in the AM and PM.

Loganair and BA have the existing relationship. A bunfight on Heathrow isn't going to end well, you and I both know that. Flybe will happily hemmorage cash to preserve their slots and Loganair may be the first to give it up. Maybe.

Sustainability is key. Hence I also said I don't get why Loganair are spreading across two London airports, I'd sooner see one operator (be it Logan or otherwise) commit to x3 daily somewhere in London.

You just don’t get it do you . If you have two EasyJets , three City rotations and a Heathrow that’s around 34,000 seats a month into a market that before the pandemic had circa 20,000 passengers in the summer .  How on earth is that ever going to work its just not sustainable. It’s the whole reason I am not a great fan of EasyJet coming here with any number of jets from Gatwick flying at irregular times and crowding others out , a view you and many others on here have mocked me about many times . And for the record I repeat I have consistently said and believe the London market should be served by two operators one of which is a casual low cost option . But by having that the options to have frequent rotations to either City or Heathrow are very limited . 
 

Also if you look at the current data Heathrow has considerably more passenger movements with a once a day flight ( 2903 In august) compared to City which had (2387) over two rotations so if I was operating an airline I know which I would choose right now . 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that we need more seats and more choice into the overall London market, and I see City as being a much better option than Heathrow, but perhaps worth throwing into the mix, is that up at Inverness (where Mr Cobb worked previously) easyJet have night-stopped a Gatwick based aircraft, and crew, for many years. This enables them to do an early morning south-bound departure, and to provide a fairly consistent schedule across the week. This also means that there is no late evening departure to Gatwick, which is the most unreliable and fragile part of the current easyJet operation at Ronaldsway.

More recently, I think post Co-Vid, easyJet also night-stop at Aberdeen, a destination they had previously abandoned, from Gatwick.

I recall, that when the Inverness arrangement began, there was some cash involved, and I have no idea if that is still the case, but doubtless Mr Cobb will know. So, he may well see a similar arrangement here, as part of the solution for London, and one would imagine that if the numbers could be crunched to their satisfaction, easyJet would be willing to go for it.  

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, IOM said:

You just don’t get it do you . If you have two EasyJets , three City rotations and a Heathrow that’s around 34,000 seats a month into a market that before the pandemic had circa 20,000 passengers in the summer .  How on earth is that ever going to work its just not sustainable. It’s the whole reason I am not a great fan of EasyJet coming here with any number of jets from Gatwick flying at irregular times and crowding others out , a view you and many others on here have mocked me about many times . And for the record I repeat I have consistently said and believe the London market should be served by two operators one of which is a casual low cost option . But by having that the options to have frequent rotations to either City or Heathrow are very limited . 
 

Also if you look at the current data Heathrow has considerably more passenger movements with a once a day flight ( 2903 In august) compared to City which had (2387) over two rotations so if I was operating an airline I know which I would choose right now . 

The joys of open skies ! Mind you with our 2.5 million passengers a year we need it  .........

Oh sorry Reynolds has gone, maybe we can get a realist this time !

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

Is that Peel Holdings shutting down Sheffield airport?

BBC News - Doncaster Sheffield Airport: Holidaymakers 'devastated' after closure announcement


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-63032893

Maybe our treasury haven't paid them the latest installment of the bottomless pit for the Liverpool landing stage !!... 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Albert Tatlock said:

Is that Peel Holdings shutting down Sheffield airport?

BBC News - Doncaster Sheffield Airport: Holidaymakers 'devastated' after closure announcement
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-63032893

It looks like it.  Of course it's not even the first Sheffield Airport that Peel have shut down for financial gain.  Given that Reynolds was in charge for that one, now she's free, maybe they brought her back to work her magic in Doncaster.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...