slinky09 wrote:

TFFIP wrote:

I know slots at LHR are expensive and hard to come by and I wonder why British Airways has added so many
holiday destinations to their LHR plan rather than those destinations being served by LGW and use the
LHR ones for things that will generate more money than Kalamta and places like that? (Info I get from the
air crew so sometimes it's gossip but mostly what one hears pans out on way or another)

A lot of those routes are weekly or so - planned to use planes and slots at weekends when the need for multiple daily frequencies to some European cities is less than during working days. Smart move by BA when it sometimes otherwise rests the planes and slots.

When IAG bought BD from the Lufthansa Group, a large number of LHR slots came with the airline, along with an almost entirely shorthaul fleet of planes (just two widebodies, which soon left). There weren't any LGW slots in the deal, because BD didn't fly there. So BA was handed a batch of short-haul-optimised slots, and a batch of short haul planes to work them. If there were more profitable short haul destinations than Kalamata that the LHR slots could be used for, you'd expect that they'd be flying there, though they probably already are. Over time, BA has managed to juggle the slots around with its existing slot portfolio and create slot pairs usable for long haul, and have grown the long haul fleet to take advantage of this. But this is a slow process, increasing the fleet by dozens of long haul planes a year is beyond IAG's resources.
Suggesting transferring routes to LGW is all very well, but LGW is also slot controlled and slots are traded between airlines, they just don't fetch as much money as at LHR.
The Greek destinations are very useful to British Airways' holiday division, and independent package tour operators also block book seats. There's a surprising amount of transfer traffic too, when I've travelled on some of these flights there have usually been people who have come off overnight transatlantics.

11725Flyer wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

Block wrote:

What about JetBlue they want to enter the London Market and this will reserve their place

Surely you must be kidding. No way they could even afford that, way out of their league. .

Not really. They were willing to shell out a huge amount of money on VX, so perhaps this is is just a recalculation to move forward east, not west. We'll see.

Again, shelling out a huge amount of money for an airline is one thing, but for one slot at LHR is an entirely different animal. Unless B6 has plans on buying a single A380, I just cant see this going to B6. I mean, fares are ridiculously low as they are to LHR from east coast points. A single daily A321 for that kind of money, cant see it happening.

jumbojet wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

Surely you must be kidding. No way they could even afford that, way out of their league. .

Are you serious?? US Carriers are awash in cash. If anyone can afford it right now it's a US carrier.

But not for JetBlue flying one narrow body a day into LHR. That kind of cash for so little capacity is senseless. AA and a 77W makes more sense. Won't be B6

Your hatred of JetBlue won't stop them from growing or going east. Delta isn't all you make it out to be. Get over yourself, JetBlue has a lot of money and a real itch to go transatlantic

jumbojet wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

Surely you must be kidding. No way they could even afford that, way out of their league. .

Are you serious?? US Carriers are awash in cash. If anyone can afford it right now it's a US carrier.

But not for JetBlue flying one narrow body a day into LHR. That kind of cash for so little capacity is senseless. AA and a 77W makes more sense. Won't be B6

Maybe so but they have to start somewhere. They're not going to start with multiple daily flights, that's for sure. There are airlines at LHR operating a single narrow body per day, and even some that don't even operate daily. There are also lots of airlines operating one less than daily widebody. Just pointing out that B6 operating a single daily narrowbody at first, would not be unusual.

jumbojet wrote:

Block wrote:

What about JetBlue they want to enter the London Market and this will reserve their place

Surely you must be kidding. No way they could even afford that, way out of their league. .

You really don't know what you are talking about do you?
Jetblue has some of the best margins out there. They have been paying cash for airplanes and paying down large chunks of debt. I get that you don't like them but they are doing well on the financial side.

Andy33 wrote:

Trump might use US government money to buy slots on behalf of US airlines.

This is not going to happen.

Andy33 wrote:

Trump might use US government money to buy slots on behalf of US airlines.

Of course. I smell Russian salad dressing.

qf789 wrote:

TheLion wrote:

Mods please could you amend the title - "of" is the wrong word.

Thanks.

Thanks for this, is now fixed

Thank you for fixing it

Blueballs wrote:

Your hatred of JetBlue won't stop them from growing or going east. Delta isn't all you make it out to be. Get over yourself, JetBlue has a lot of money and a real itch to go transatlantic

????

I do not remotely see how any supposedly JetBlue hatred should be under discussion here. Why didn't you bother replying to the argument in hand . . . ?

I think he makes a perfectly valid point: How is one going to recoup such heavy investment with so little capacity (assuming the capacity deployed would be the rumoured A321LR)? One would expect that the revenue capacity of at minimum a medium widebody (such as A333 or B777) would be required to share the investment cost over a large number of (premium) seats. Which no matter how efficient, any A321LR version will not be able to offer.

ANFSCD: How about EK throwing another A380 into LHR . . . ?

Blueballs wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

Are you serious?? US Carriers are awash in cash. If anyone can afford it right now it's a US carrier.

But not for JetBlue flying one narrow body a day into LHR. That kind of cash for so little capacity is senseless. AA and a 77W makes more sense. Won't be B6

Your hatred of JetBlue won't stop them from growing or going east. Delta isn't all you make it out to be. Get over yourself, JetBlue has a lot of money and a real itch to go transatlantic

As a Brit and also a huge fan of JetBlue I can see them eventually operating to Europe and the United Kingdom in particular but I can assure they will never be flying to the likes of LHR its definitely out of their league regardless of their margins, money in the bank or large profits, you obviously don't know much about Heathrow Airport or the transatlantic market.

If and when JetBlue do announce transatlantic flying the London airport of choice will more than likely be LGW or STN but I would hedge my bets on Stansted considering their will be no competition and slots will be A LOT easier to come across especially as LGW slots will be near on impossible by then.

All this fanciful talk about JetBlue at LHR is ridiculous regardless of what's been said by the management or any others, most airlines executives use LHR as a benchmark for London but that's from major legacy carriers not the likes of a low cost carrier such as JetBlue. The legacy carriers such as AA, BA, DL, US will soon retaliate and game lost for JetBlue after spending absolutely millions on LHR slots before they've even made a profit out of them, it could seriously affect the finances of the airline, a HUGE risk indeed and one the airline would never indulge in especially when their are other alternative London airports, as in LGW or STN.

For their first foray into transatlantic routes and London in particular LHR just doesn't make sense for loads of reasons some of which other members have picked up on.

I see It's only your second post and your calling someone a 'JetBlue hater', you have to be more mature and grown up to accept other people's opinions!

Cunard wrote:

Blueballs wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

But not for JetBlue flying one narrow body a day into LHR. That kind of cash for so little capacity is senseless. AA and a 77W makes more sense. Won't be B6

Your hatred of JetBlue won't stop them from growing or going east. Delta isn't all you make it out to be. Get over yourself, JetBlue has a lot of money and a real itch to go transatlantic

As a Brit and also a huge fan of JetBlue I can see them eventually operating to Europe and the United Kingdom in particular but I can assure they will never be flying to the likes of LHR its definitely out of their league regardless of their margins, money in the bank or large profits, you obviously don't know much about Heathrow Airport or the transatlantic market.

If and when JetBlue do announce transatlantic flying the London airport of choice will more than likely be LGW or STN but I would hedge my bets on Stansted considering their will be no competition and slots will be A LOT easier to come across especially as LGW slots will be near on impossible by then.

All this fanciful talk about JetBlue at LHR is ridiculous regardless of what's been said by the management or any others, most airlines executives use LHR as a benchmark for London but that's from major legacy carriers not the likes of a low cost carrier such as JetBlue. The legacy carriers such as AA, BA, DL, US will soon retaliate and game lost for JetBlue after spending absolutely millions on LHR slots before they've even made a profit out of them, it could seriously affect the finances of the airline, a HUGE risk indeed and one the airline would never indulge in especially when their are other alternative London airports, as in LGW or STN.

For their first foray into transatlantic routes and London in particular LHR just doesn't make sense for loads of reasons some of which other members have picked up on.

I see It's only your second post and your calling someone a 'JetBlue hater', you have to be more mature and grown up to accept other people's opinions!

I've read these threads for years and contribute to the better forums. Jumbojet hates on JetBlue any time their name pops up. He is a troll and I'll call him out anytime I feel like it. Thanks for your mature opinion champ

jumbojet wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

Surely you must be kidding. No way they could even afford that, way out of their league. .

Are you serious?? US Carriers are awash in cash. If anyone can afford it right now it's a US carrier.

But not for JetBlue flying one narrow body a day into LHR. That kind of cash for so little capacity is senseless. AA and a 77W makes more sense. Won't be B6

I was thinking it would be UA to buy those slots, They could really use some more EWR/ORD/LAX-LHR frequencies or opening DEN-LHR.

slinky09 wrote:

TFFIP wrote:

I know slots at LHR are expensive and hard to come by and I wonder why British Airways has added so many
holiday destinations to their LHR plan rather than those destinations being served by LGW and use the
LHR ones for things that will generate more money than Kalamta and places like that? (Info I get from the
air crew so sometimes it's gossip but mostly what one hears pans out on way or another)

A lot of those routes are weekly or so - planned to use planes and slots at weekends when the need for multiple daily frequencies to some European cities is less than during working days. Smart move by BA when it sometimes otherwise rests the planes and slots.

Quite. There were unused LHR slots available from the slot coordinator late in the day on Saturday and early in the day on Sunday, all free of any charge. Further BA had LHR based short-haul aircraft sitting on the ground doing nothing at these very times as short-haul business traffic is then almost non-existent.

A couple of years back, apparently in an effort to improve aircraft utilisation BA started to use the parked aircraft in unused weekend slots to operate charter flights out of LHR to Winter Ski and Summer Beach destinations.

This appeared to be successful because more recently they have reduced the number of charter flights using the same slots so they can operate scheduled flights to the same or similar destinations. It seems to me that they have surrendered the bulk of the holiday market to the likes of FR and U2 but are skimming the cream on the top of that market for themselves by operating a limited number of flights to a large number of destinations from LHR. So they may have established a small but possibly high return niche operation for themselves.

As BA do not have a long-haul fleet of aircraft that are briefly under utilised, substituting long-haul for these new short haul rotations does not appear to me to be an option. Indeed even if they did have such aircraft where could they fly them to recognising that the LHR slots used are primarily late Saturday and early Sunday? Other than DME and TLV I can think of none.

Cunard wrote:

Blueballs wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

But not for JetBlue flying one narrow body a day into LHR. That kind of cash for so little capacity is senseless. AA and a 77W makes more sense. Won't be B6

Your hatred of JetBlue won't stop them from growing or going east. Delta isn't all you make it out to be. Get over yourself, JetBlue has a lot of money and a real itch to go transatlantic

As a Brit and also a huge fan of JetBlue I can see them eventually operating to Europe and the United Kingdom in particular but I can assure they will never be flying to the likes of LHR its definitely out of their league regardless of their margins, money in the bank or large profits, you obviously don't know much about Heathrow Airport or the transatlantic market.

If and when JetBlue do announce transatlantic flying the London airport of choice will more than likely be LGW or STN but I would hedge my bets on Stansted considering their will be no competition and slots will be A LOT easier to come across especially as LGW slots will be near on impossible by then.

All this fanciful talk about JetBlue at LHR is ridiculous regardless of what's been said by the management or any others, most airlines executives use LHR as a benchmark for London but that's from major legacy carriers not the likes of a low cost carrier such as JetBlue. The legacy carriers such as AA, BA, DL, US will soon retaliate and game lost for JetBlue after spending absolutely millions on LHR slots before they've even made a profit out of them, it could seriously affect the finances of the airline, a HUGE risk indeed and one the airline would never indulge in especially when their are other alternative London airports, as in LGW or STN.

For their first foray into transatlantic routes and London in particular LHR just doesn't make sense for loads of reasons some of which other members have picked up on.

I see It's only your second post and your calling someone a 'JetBlue hater', you have to be more mature and grown up to accept other people's opinions!

Nothing is "out of Jetblue's league." US carriers aren't broke like Euro carriers. After year over year of billions in profits 75m is a pittance for them. "second tier" airlines like Allegiant could pay cash for an A380 tomorrow and fly it anywhere in the world.

London is overpriced and overhyped, but it's far from "out of your league" for a major US carrier.

Slots at LHR sold by SAS probably are not the early morning highly desired type wanted by Asian and North American airlines. They probably are late morning to early evening times so they are desirable by a Middle East airline.

skipness1E wrote:

London City is incredibly hard to make money out of unless you are BA. Lufthansa has tried almost every German market at eon point or another and all were dropped, even MUC, leaving only LCY-FRA. Even BA CityFlyer dropped ARN and CPH from LCY after SAS left.

No doubt that LCY has its challenges but it's worth pointing out that even from LHR, LH only flies to FRA and MUC.

jfk777 wrote:

Slots at LHR sold by SAS probably are not the early morning highly desired type wanted by Asian and North American airlines. They probably are late morning to early evening times so they are desirable by a Middle East airline.

That looks to be the case. SAS doesn't currently have any early arrivals into LHR, unless those slots are leased to someone else. SK's first LHR arrival is at 8:50AM.

Varsity1 wrote:

Cunard wrote:

Blueballs wrote:

Your hatred of JetBlue won't stop them from growing or going east. Delta isn't all you make it out to be. Get over yourself, JetBlue has a lot of money and a real itch to go transatlantic

As a Brit and also a huge fan of JetBlue I can see them eventually operating to Europe and the United Kingdom in particular but I can assure they will never be flying to the likes of LHR its definitely out of their league regardless of their margins, money in the bank or large profits, you obviously don't know much about Heathrow Airport or the transatlantic market.

If and when JetBlue do announce transatlantic flying the London airport of choice will more than likely be LGW or STN but I would hedge my bets on Stansted considering their will be no competition and slots will be A LOT easier to come across especially as LGW slots will be near on impossible by then.

All this fanciful talk about JetBlue at LHR is ridiculous regardless of what's been said by the management or any others, most airlines executives use LHR as a benchmark for London but that's from major legacy carriers not the likes of a low cost carrier such as JetBlue. The legacy carriers such as AA, BA, DL, US will soon retaliate and game lost for JetBlue after spending absolutely millions on LHR slots before they've even made a profit out of them, it could seriously affect the finances of the airline, a HUGE risk indeed and one the airline would never indulge in especially when their are other alternative London airports, as in LGW or STN.

For their first foray into transatlantic routes and London in particular LHR just doesn't make sense for loads of reasons some of which other members have picked up on.

I see It's only your second post and your calling someone a 'JetBlue hater', you have to be more mature and grown up to accept other people's opinions!

Nothing is "out of Jetblue's league." US carriers aren't broke like Euro carriers. After year over year of billions in profits 75m is a pittance for them. "second tier" airlines like Allegiant could pay cash for an A380 tomorrow and fly it anywhere in the world.

London is overpriced and overhyped, but it's far from "out of your league" for a major US carrier.

London is overpriced and overhyped, but it's far from 'out of your league' for a major US airline[/quote]

I wasn't suggesting London was 'out of your league' for a major US airline I was saying that London Heathrow Airport was out of league for JetBlue and it is absolutely and I'm being realistic, it doesn't mean that I personally don't want to see JetBlue at LHR but it will never happen. To make a viable operation at LHR work JetBlue would have to spend a substantial amount of money and we're talking absolute millions of dollars here to acummilate enough slots to go up against the likes of AA, BA, DL, VS, UA who between them operate multiple flights a day using mostly wide bodies to numerous cities throughout the USA, they won't sit back and allow the likes of JetBlue to succeed on their lucrative transatlantic business from LHR.

Look at how BA are trying to combat Norwegian at LGW by opening up FLL and OAK!

By the time that JetBlue do finally announce flights to the UK LHR will be totally full and any early morning to mid morning slots will be totally gone to those established carriers wanting to expand not allowing the likes of JetBlue to get their hands on them.

if JetBlue flew from LGW the likes of BA and Norwegian will give them a beating that's for sure, considering that they fly with wide bodies how could a A321LR compete in that market.

It doesn't matter how cash rich JetBlue are but buying unessecary slots at LHR for ridiculous amounts of money with no guaranteed return on those assets up against competition from other well established airlines it could severely affect the airline in a big way financially and would not be worth the risk when there are other alternative London airports better suited to the airline, as in LGW and STN.

The only real airport of choice for JetBlue if and when they do start operating from London would be London Stansted Airport, it has the capacity to accommodate JetBlue who would have no competition on any transatlantic routes, it would be able to have the appropriate slots, it has a large modern terminal, it's Ryanair's largest base with a possibility of a link up for connections, JetBlue would never be able to see those benefits at LHR and it would take the airline a decade or so to reap the rewards from any expensive LHR slots.

JetBlue and London Heathrow Airport, NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

JetBlue and London, YES IT WILL HAPPEN, eventually but just not from London Heathrow Airport.

I used to fly SK CPH-LHR on a regular basis a a few years ago, and they used a MD-80/MD-90 for the route. It was a bit out of place to see such a small plane at LHR among all the widebodies. More than once, we pulled up to the jetbridge but had to deplane by stairs, because the jetbridge couldn't go low enough to connect to the plane!

So no surprise they sold it -- it sounds like they'll just reduce frequencies but upgauge the equipment.

SAS used the 'origional' Terminal 2 along with most of the European flag carriers but switched their LHR operations to Terminal 3 in the mid 1990s, Terminal 3 then being the intercontinental terminal was used by the majority of long haul airlines so that's why you were amongst wide bodies, untill SAS got their dedicated stands at Terminal 3 it was quite common practice to disembark by stairs.

SAS have been using the brand new purpose built Terminal 2 at LHR for the last three years still amongst wide bodies though as its a Star Alliance terminal.

Interestingly,an article in yesterday's Daily Telegraph indicated that there are about 30 airlines waiting for slots. Most may well be existing operators, but some may be new.

Cunard wrote:

[


It doesn't matter how cash rich JetBlue are but buying unessecary slots at LHR for ridiculous amounts of money with no guaranteed return on those assets up against competition from other well established airlines it could severely affect the airline in a big way financially and would not be worth the risk when there are other alternative London airports better suited to the airline, as in LGW and STN.

The only real airport of choice for JetBlue if and when they do start operating from London would be London Stansted Airport, it has the capacity to accommodate JetBlue who would have no competition on any transatlantic routes, it would be able to have the appropriate slots, it has a large modern terminal, it's Ryanair's largest base with a possibility of a link up for connections, JetBlue would never be able to see those benefits at LHR and it would take the airline a decade or so to reap the rewards from any expensive LHR slots.

JetBlue and London Heathrow Airport, NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

JetBlue and London, YES IT WILL HAPPEN, eventually but just not from London Heathrow Airport.

That's a very eloquent way of saying, LHR is way out of JetBlue's league. I was never one for long, well thought out explanations like this, I just sort of get to the heart of the matter. I agree totally that B6 into and out just about any other London airport other than LHR is a very good possibility with a real good chance of success.

AirPacific747 wrote:

Apparently they want to operate larger aircraft into LHR to compensate, based on an article I read this morning

What, they don't want to fly CRJ-900s to LHR any more?

VSMUT wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

Apparently they want to operate larger aircraft into LHR to compensate, based on an article I read this morning

What, they don't want to fly CRJ-900s to LHR any more?

I would imagine they mean inserting an A330 every now and then? Or dedicating the A321 to the LHR route?

AirPacific747 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

Apparently they want to operate larger aircraft into LHR to compensate, based on an article I read this morning

What, they don't want to fly CRJ-900s to LHR any more?

I would imagine they mean inserting an A330 every now and then? Or dedicating the A321 to the LHR route?

I would think just upgrading to A320, A321 or 738 would be suffice, considering that over the past few years they would operate aircraft as small as the CRJ, 737-600 and 717 on that route.

VSMUT wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

What, they don't want to fly CRJ-900s to LHR any more?

I would imagine they mean inserting an A330 every now and then? Or dedicating the A321 to the LHR route?

I would think just upgrading to A320, A321 or 738 would be suffice, considering that over the past few years they would operate aircraft as small as the CRJ, 737-600 and 717 on that route.

Okay I thought you meant it as a joke.. didn't realize they would send a CRJ to LHR.. doesn't sound very profitable to me!

AirPacific747 wrote:

Okay I thought you meant it as a joke.. didn't realize they would send a CRJ to LHR.. doesn't sound very profitable to me!

Truth be told, I don't know if they still do it, but a friend of mine who flew the CRJ with them certainly had a lot of flights to LHR with it about two years ago. It wasn't even flights in the middle of the day, it was right in the morning rush-hour.

Its foolish for JetBlue to spend 75 million for two slots at LHR especially being that it seems the times are very unfavorable. Just think what JetBlue could do with that kind of money with other London area airports. They could essentially get out of the gate with a big bang.

readytotaxi wrote:

Question, does LGW operate a "use it or loose it" policy?

That's not for the airport to decide. The rules on grandfathering of slots are part of the Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports.

Cunard wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

Cunard wrote:

As a Brit and also a huge fan of JetBlue I can see them eventually operating to Europe and the United Kingdom in particular but I can assure they will never be flying to the likes of LHR its definitely out of their league regardless of their margins, money in the bank or large profits, you obviously don't know much about Heathrow Airport or the transatlantic market.

If and when JetBlue do announce transatlantic flying the London airport of choice will more than likely be LGW or STN but I would hedge my bets on Stansted considering their will be no competition and slots will be A LOT easier to come across especially as LGW slots will be near on impossible by then.

All this fanciful talk about JetBlue at LHR is ridiculous regardless of what's been said by the management or any others, most airlines executives use LHR as a benchmark for London but that's from major legacy carriers not the likes of a low cost carrier such as JetBlue. The legacy carriers such as AA, BA, DL, US will soon retaliate and game lost for JetBlue after spending absolutely millions on LHR slots before they've even made a profit out of them, it could seriously affect the finances of the airline, a HUGE risk indeed and one the airline would never indulge in especially when their are other alternative London airports, as in LGW or STN.

For their first foray into transatlantic routes and London in particular LHR just doesn't make sense for loads of reasons some of which other members have picked up on.

I see It's only your second post and your calling someone a 'JetBlue hater', you have to be more mature and grown up to accept other people's opinions!

Nothing is "out of Jetblue's league." US carriers aren't broke like Euro carriers. After year over year of billions in profits 75m is a pittance for them. "second tier" airlines like Allegiant could pay cash for an A380 tomorrow and fly it anywhere in the world.

London is overpriced and overhyped, but it's far from "out of your league" for a major US carrier.

London is overpriced and overhyped, but it's far from 'out of your league' for a major US airline

[/quote]I wasn't suggesting London was 'out of your league' for a major US airline I was saying that London Heathrow Airport was out of league for JetBlue and it is absolutely and I'm being realistic, it doesn't mean that I personally don't want to see JetBlue at LHR but it will never happen. To make a viable operation at LHR work JetBlue would have to spend a substantial amount of money and we're talking absolute millions of dollars here to acummilate enough slots to go up against the likes of AA, BA, DL, VS, UA who between them operate multiple flights a day using mostly wide bodies to numerous cities throughout the USA, they won't sit back and allow the likes of JetBlue to succeed on their lucrative transatlantic business from LHR.

Look at how BA are trying to combat Norwegian at LGW by opening up FLL and OAK!

By the time that JetBlue do finally announce flights to the UK LHR will be totally full and any early morning to mid morning slots will be totally gone to those established carriers wanting to expand not allowing the likes of JetBlue to get their hands on them.

if JetBlue flew from LGW the likes of BA and Norwegian will give them a beating that's for sure, considering that they fly with wide bodies how could a A321LR compete in that market.

It doesn't matter how cash rich JetBlue are but buying unessecary slots at LHR for ridiculous amounts of money with no guaranteed return on those assets up against competition from other well established airlines it could severely affect the airline in a big way financially and would not be worth the risk when there are other alternative London airports better suited to the airline, as in LGW and STN.

The only real airport of choice for JetBlue if and when they do start operating from London would be London Stansted Airport, it has the capacity to accommodate JetBlue who would have no competition on any transatlantic routes, it would be able to have the appropriate slots, it has a large modern terminal, it's Ryanair's largest base with a possibility of a link up for connections, JetBlue would never be able to see those benefits at LHR and it would take the airline a decade or so to reap the rewards from any expensive LHR slots.

JetBlue and London Heathrow Airport, NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

JetBlue and London, YES IT WILL HAPPEN, eventually but just not from London Heathrow Airport.[/quote]


Who ever said, and why you so sure that transatlantic with jetblue will be with A321's only?
Have you done the research before blasting empty drivel!
http://travelupdate.boardingarea.com/je ... airplanes/
https://skift.com/2016/09/19/jetblue-th ... r-flights/
I bet it will be widebodies to major markets to Europe i.e. London/Paris/Amsterdam/Rome etc and A321LR to smaller markets from the northeast, i.e. BDL/pit-SNN/Lgw. And deeper to carribean/South America from Florida, etc.
As far as Norwegian giving jetblue "a beating", yes there will be a so called '"beating" but I doubt it will on the end of jetblue. Jetblue has double the size of all of Norwegians fleet, mostly owned aircraft, robust strong North American/carribean/upper s. America network, much stronger cash flow and awash in liquidity compared to Norwegians balance sheet which is its fleet is virtually all leveraged. I think Norwegian will be the one taking quite a shalacking when jetblue gets wide bodies. Jetblue has a extremely competeant and astute management, and robin hayes has brought in a slew of his ilk from his days at British airways so they are well experienced on how to operate long haul oceanic. That's what he and his team have cut their teeth on at BA. They are more gearing up for a competition with the big guys over Norwegian or wow air. No one thought they would be able to take on the big US 3 with a premium cabin on trans con, now the US 3 are all scrambling to catch up with the lie flat product across the US to try to compete with jetblue, except for as/vx which basically doesn't even want to try to jump in that knowing how well jetblue has made quite the product to contend with.
Jetblue has one thing in it's history that's always stayed the same, they succeeded in every way where everyone else said it wouldn't. Don't fool yourself, they will shake up transatlantic. They always expand their beloved customer base everywhere they expand, even Europeans who know the brand from transfer flights via codeshare.

I am a big fan of JetBlue having flown them myself on numerous occasions and think they are a great airline but I will stick with my origional statement without going into the subject any further.

I am sure that JetBlue will do very well on transatlantics I'm not doubting that but what all I am pointing out is reality and your enthusiasm is getting the better of you.

JetBlue eventually flies transatlantic to London YES

JetBlue will fly to London Heathrow Absolutely NO

Jetblue if and when they fly to London be it LGW or STN a Definite YES.

We're have this conversation in a couple of years time and I will be proven RIGHT.

You obviously have no idea of how the London airport system works especially concerning London Heathrow.

VolvoBus wrote:

Interestingly,an article in yesterday's Daily Telegraph indicated that there are about 30 airlines waiting for slots. Most may well be existing operators, but some may be new.

That quote of 30 airlines waiting to serve LHR has been doing the rounds for nearly six years now, it was initially put out by HAL Heathrow Airport limited to reinforce their plans for runway 3 so is old news and not really substantiated.

A few airlines have started flying from LHR since that initial statement was made, slots obtained by defunct airlines, expensive buyouts of slots, leased slots, transfer of slots, etc.

They include the following 10 airlines.

Aeromexico, Avianca, China Eastern, China Southern, Flybe, Garuda Indonesia*, Philippine Airlines, Oman Air*, Vietnam Airlines*, Vueling.

* denotes origionally flying from LGW transferring to LHR.

To much capacity in the international markets could definitely hold off any growth JetBlue had in mind, especially if it includes the purchases of expensive widebody planes.


Morgan Stanley downgrades airline stocks because too much added capacity will hurt profitability


http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/22/morgan-s ... acity.html

Does anyone know who purchased the SAS slots ?

jfk777 wrote:

Does anyone know who purchased the SAS slots ?

This thread is horrible. Lots of shots at DL and B6, who purchased the slots???

Cunard wrote:

All this fanciful talk about JetBlue at LHR is ridiculous regardless of what's been said by the management or any others, most airlines executives use LHR as a benchmark for London but that's from major legacy carriers not the likes of a low cost carrier such as JetBlue.
[...]
if JetBlue flew from LGW the likes of BA and Norwegian will give them a beating that's for sure, considering that they fly with wide bodies how could a A321LR compete in that market.

What are you? 12? I don't think you're very familiar with B6 or the U.S. market. Heck I'm starting to doubt that you're even familiar with the UK market. JetBlue is no more low cost than the likes of Emirates, Aer Lingus, TAP, Turkish, Icelandair, Eurowings, Vueling, and others, all of which operate at LHR. B6 has its main hubs at JFK and BOS, neither are secondary airport, cheap to operate from, or lack competition.

airbazar wrote:

What are you? 12? I don't think you're very familiar with B6 or the U.S. market. Heck I'm starting to doubt that you're even familiar with the UK market. JetBlue is no more low cost than the likes of Emirates, Aer Lingus, TAP, Turkish, Icelandair, Eurowings, Vueling, and others, all of which operate at LHR. B6 has its main hubs at JFK and BOS, neither are secondary airport, cheap to operate from, or lack competition.

You are obviously not wrong in your assessment. That being said, JetBlue has yet to clarify its transatlantic strategy. The strategy will determine the airport(s) to which it will fly. If the goal is to partner with a European airline for onward connections within Europe, the location of the partner's base will dictate to which airport it will fly, whether it is a full service European carrier at LHR or a discount carrier at LGW/STN. If on the other hand, the strategy is to rely on US based connecting traffic to O&D specific ports in Europe, then it opens up other options. We could potentially even dream of a C-Series order (which is already being rumoured simply to cover NA routes) to serve LCY from JFK/BOS. The C-Series provides a lower seat alternatives to A321 to JetBlue to launch transatlantic routes if it wished to be more conservative.

So back to the main topic. I doubt JetBlue is ready to buy LHR slots given its transatlantic strategy is pretty much still at the drawing board. Yes they have the money and firepower to do so. but it makes little sense at this stage especially given the slots are not ideal for transatlantic flying. they buyer is most likely middle eastern given the slots or a major transatlantic airline with multiple flights per day looking at hourly flights rather than once a day flights.

What if JetBlue were to choose Luton. Would they have trouble in getting slots, and there is no competition in flying to the USA

Steve

Someone said it best earlier..this is an awful thread. What does B6 have to do with these slots? What aircraft would they use? Why are we even talking about B6?? That's a separate topic. I could see DL behind this. It seems they have been very eager lately to add LHR service. But it really could be just about any airline. The times I saw would be perfect for a US airline. I guess we will have to wait and see

Late Morning and early afternoon slots work for a US west coast flight very well.

In its first quarter earnings release this morning, AA confirmed that it "entered into an arrangement with Scandinavian Airlines to obtain two slot pairs at London’s Heathrow Airport, strengthening American’s presence at a key international gateway for American and joint business partner British Airways." AA President Robert Isom was quoted as stating that AA "moved quickly on the opportunity to add two new slot pairs at Heathrow, which we will use to improve service to and from one of the world's most important business markets."

commavia wrote:

In its first quarter earnings release this morning, AA confirmed that it "entered into an arrangement with Scandinavian Airlines to obtain two slot pairs at London’s Heathrow Airport, strengthening American’s presence at a key international gateway for American and joint business partner British Airways." AA President Robert Isom was quoted as stating that AA "moved quickly on the opportunity to add two new slot pairs at Heathrow, which we will use to improve service to and from one of the world's most important business markets."

I'm surprised this is allowed. What was the point of making BA/AA divest slots to get their ATI/JV if they can just acquire more?

cledaybuck wrote:

I'm surprised this is allowed. What was the point of making BA/AA divest slots to get their ATI/JV if they can just acquire more?

Other companies have access to the slots once they hit the open market. AA either outbid others for them or pulled the trigger sooner.

commavia wrote:

In its first quarter earnings release this morning, AA confirmed that it "entered into an arrangement with Scandinavian Airlines to obtain two slot pairs at London’s Heathrow Airport, strengthening American’s presence at a key international gateway for American and joint business partner British Airways." AA President Robert Isom was quoted as stating that AA "moved quickly on the opportunity to add two new slot pairs at Heathrow, which we will use to improve service to and from one of the world's most important business markets."

Thanks commavia. Wonder if AA will announce where the slots will be deployed on the earnings call. Honestly they seem to have good coverage from all applicable Hubs except PHX which is served adequately via BA. I could see them possibly running a second daily from there, but would be interesting if they added a couple non-Hubs

sagechan wrote:

commavia wrote:

In its first quarter earnings release this morning, AA confirmed that it "entered into an arrangement with Scandinavian Airlines to obtain two slot pairs at London’s Heathrow Airport, strengthening American’s presence at a key international gateway for American and joint business partner British Airways." AA President Robert Isom was quoted as stating that AA "moved quickly on the opportunity to add two new slot pairs at Heathrow, which we will use to improve service to and from one of the world's most important business markets."

Thanks commavia. Wonder if AA will announce where the slots will be deployed on the earnings call. Honestly they seem to have good coverage from all applicable Hubs except PHX which is served adequately via BA. I could see them possibly running a second daily from there, but would be interesting if they added a couple non-Hubs

I think it'll be PHX (since it's the last hub with no AA metal service, and the market could handle double daily with connects on both ends) and maybe an extra from CLT. CLT is the only major AA hub without BA and the two daily flights are almost always full.

commavia wrote:

What was the point of making BA/AA divest slots to get their ATI/JV if they can just acquire more?

The divested slots had to be used to fly between LHR and stipulated US gateways. So the purpose was to provide competition on specified routes where AA/BA had high frequencies and a large market share. And note here that the price of the surrendered slots was not $75 million a pair but nothing. it was never intended to create a restrictive market but solely to increase competition.

If today BA or, as in this case, AA wish to invest large sums of money to buy slots to operate from LHR to existing or new US gateway cities they, like all other airlines, are perfectly within their rights. To not allow this would restrict competition, not increase it. At the same time others, DL UA and VS included, are also perfectly entitled to compete in the market for prime time LHR slots. Indeed the Slot-trade web site run by Airport Coordination Ltd provides a resource to encourage such competition.

Any other arrangement would be a restrictive practice. It would be a return to restrictive regulation. I cannot see any airline not walking away from a deal with the authorities if it included possible future restrictions on their operations by such heavy handed regulation. Here remember that AA/BA were granted IMMUNITY if they transferred the stipulated slots and that they had walked away from their earlier attempts in both 1996 and then 2001 to seek immunity because of the number of slots the authorities required that they surrender. What later changed the ball game was the immunity granted to others (AF/AZ//DL/KL and AC/LH/SKUA) with whom AA and BA were in competition.

Note here that when SK decided to sell this slot pair they were in partnership with AF, DL (and hence VS), KL, LH and SN amongst others. It seems unlikely that they sold the slots to competitor AA in secrecy from their partners like of DL, LH and VS.

vv701 wrote:

commavia wrote:

What was the point of making BA/AA divest slots to get their ATI/JV if they can just acquire more?

The divested slots had to be used to fly between LHR and stipulated US gateways. So the purpose was to provide competition on specified routes where AA/BA had high frequencies and a large market share. And note here that the price of the surrendered slots was not $75 million a pair but nothing. it was never intended to create a restrictive market but solely to increase competition.

If today BA or, as in this case, AA wish to invest large sums of money to buy slots to operate from LHR to existing or new US gateway cities they, like all other airlines, are perfectly within their rights. To not allow this would restrict competition, not increase it. At the same time others, DL UA and VS included, are also perfectly entitled to compete in the market for prime time LHR slots. Indeed the Slot-trade web site run by Airport Coordination Ltd provides a resource to encourage such competition.

Any other arrangement would be a restrictive practice. It would be a return to restrictive regulation. I cannot see any airline not walking away from a deal with the authorities if it included possible future restrictions on their operations by such heavy handed regulation. Here remember that AA/BA were granted IMMUNITY if they transferred the stipulated slots and that they had walked away from their earlier attempts in both 1996 and then 2001 to seek immunity because of the number of slots the authorities required that they surrender. What later changed the ball game was the immunity granted to others (AF/AZ//DL/KL and AC/LH/SKUA) with whom AA and BA were in competition.

Note here that when SK decided to sell this slot pair they were in partnership with AF, DL (and hence VS), KL, LH and SN amongst others. It seems unlikely that they sold the slots to competitor AA in secrecy from their partners like of DL, LH and VS.

I see your point, but the counterargument is that by allowing AA/BA to add to their slot portfolio increases the dominance of AA/BA to the competitive detriment of LHR. For example, the US often prohibits dominant carriers from increasing their holdings (see UA at EWR, but allowed JFK for DL, and IIRC limited how much US Airways got from DL at DCA). In addition, at what point does the acquisition by slots by AA/BA begin to restrict competition - if you say their acquisition of slots increases competition - what if they get to 90%, etc.

Personally, I haven't concluded whether I care or whether AA/BA shouldn't or should have been allowed to get the slots - just throwing in an alternative argument.

codc10 wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

I'm surprised this is allowed. What was the point of making BA/AA divest slots to get their ATI/JV if they can just acquire more?

Other companies have access to the slots once they hit the open market. AA either outbid others for them or pulled the trigger sooner.

That argument doesn't seem to be working for WN at DAL.

And it's worth noting that the slots AA/BA had to give up at LHR to increase competition at PHL only have to be used specifically on LHR-PHL for a set number of years, 5 maybe? So it will not be too surprising if DL moves it's "barely hanging on" 4-5x weekly 752 LHR-PHL somewhere else that might not promote as much competition as intended.

vv701 wrote:

commavia wrote:

What was the point of making BA/AA divest slots to get their ATI/JV if they can just acquire more?

The divested slots had to be used to fly between LHR and stipulated US gateways. So the purpose was to provide competition on specified routes where AA/BA had high frequencies and a large market share. And note here that the price of the surrendered slots was not $75 million a pair but nothing. it was never intended to create a restrictive market but solely to increase competition.

Yeah, the required slots to be divested was an absolute joke. The stipulation that they be used for specific airport pairs where AA/BA were the dominant players set up other airlines for failure.

cledaybuck wrote:

That argument doesn't seem to be working for WN at DAL.

Gates are the issue at DAL, coupled with a lack of supply. WN has the overwhelming majority of DAL slots and is not interested in selling. The other companies with slots lack the gates to service their flights, hence the inability to add more.