Flying Blue (Air France, KLM, and Other Partners) - Are there ANY Skyteam connections at Heathrow???

Anyone ever done a Skyteam connection at LHR????

I have done plenty of both OneWorld and Star Alliance connections at LHR but never a sky one

I am aware that KLM AMS-LHR and then DL LHR-MIA was once an option but since then DL have ended that service

any others????

???? Not sure if I understand your post.
What about any Delta flight to US?

AFAIK you can still connect MSP/DTW/BOS/JFK/ATL to LHR, continuing to AMS on KLM, CDG on AF, MXP/FCO on AZ, maybe SVO on SU, perhaps more if AirEuropa, Czech, Tarom, Kenya, etc. serve LHR. Also, for DL, OA (Olympic) is a DL codeshare and SkyMiles partner even though OA is not in SkyTeam.

???? Not sure if I understand your post.
What about any Delta flight to US?

+1 I too am confused.

A very unusual question...

But yes, the SkyTeam carriers Air France, Aeroflot, Alitalia, China Southern, China Eastern, Delta, Kenya Airways, KLM, Korean Air, TAROM and Saudia all use Terminal 4 at Heathrow, making connections easier.

Delta flies to Atlanta, Boston, Detroit, Minneapolis-Saint Paul and JFK from Heathrow.

Yes but most of those destinations you can already fly direct

for example
why fly Minneapolis-Heathrow-Amsterdam when you can just fly direct Minneapolis-Amsterdam on a skyteam carrier

I was trying to find examples where by transferring through LHR is the easiest option

for example with Star Alliance BMI would fly into LHR from most UK airports and allow you to transfer onwards on United, Continental, Thai etc

does Skyteam do the same thing???? or are all skyteam connections mainly done in CDG and AMS?

LAst year I did LYS-LHR-NBO

Quite a simple connection, only security no immigration - I'd just leave extra time compared to other airports as you never know how long you'll taxi or how long the incoming flight will be circling over Biggin Hill...

Yes but most of those destinations you can already fly direct

does Skyteam do the same thing???? or are all skyteam connections mainly done in CDG and AMS?

The question gets stranger.

Heathrow is not a hub airport for any Skyteam airline, or perhaps more precisely, it is not the home-base of any Skyteam airline. Your bmi example is not comparable - there is no British Skyteam airline (just as there is no longer a British Star Alliance airline) so you can't connect with Skyteam (or with Star Alliance since bmi left) from a UK domestic service to an international service at Heathrow. (You can, however, connect from a UK domestic Skyteam service to an international Skyteam service at LCY). The only alliance that allows you to connect from a UK domestic to an international service at Heathrow is oneworld. This is because oneworld is the only alliance that has a carrier based in Heathrow and that offers domestic service within the UK. That much should be obvious.

If you exclude the case of having to start from a regional UK airport, then Skyteam-to-Skyteam (or even Star Alliance-to-Star Alliance) connections at Heathrow become viable. But, given that LHR is a oneworld hub, the majority of same-alliance connections made at Heathrow are, naturally, from one oneworld carrier to another.

I don't understand what point you are trying to make. It's the equivalent of asking if I can make a oneworld transfer at Frankfurt, or a Skyteam transfer at Amsterdam. Of course you can, but it's not possible for every possible route pairing that the alliance can serve through their hubs, and even for those routes where an LHR connection can be made, there are typically better alternatives. Alliances tend to drive traffic through hubs, and the options for alliance transfers at non-hub airports are therefore somewhat limited.

LAst year I did LYS-LHR-NBO

Quite a simple connection, only security no immigration - I'd just leave extra time compared to other airports as you never know how long you'll taxi or how long the incoming flight will be circling over Biggin Hill...

But was it all Skyteam? If I'm not mistaken, AF stopped flying LHR-LYS direct about three years ago right?

Re-OPs question, LHR is not a hub for any Skyteam airline so you won't get 'hub type connections' to smaller destinations and the only connections you get are between airports which are typically Skyteam airline hubs. There are, however, plenty of cases when Skyteam hubs are not connected by direct flights: what if you want to fly SVO-MSP, OTP-NBO, MSP-ICN or LIN-PVG? LHR is a great airport to connect at when it is within terminal. It effectively goes much faster than most actual skyteam hubs (and certainly the larger ones like CDG, AMS, ATL, or FCO), you don't pay the APD if you are only transiting, the lounge is much better than any ST hub airport lounge IMHO (I know JOUY31 disagrees with me on the basis of the wine ;) ) and many airlines fly their newest, nicest, and best equipped birds to LHR because it is a fairly iconic destination. And of course, London is a fabulous place for a possible stopover.

Yes but most of those destinations you can already fly direct

I was trying to find examples where by transferring through LHR is the easiest option

...or are all skyteam connections mainly done in CDG and AMS?

The question gets stranger.

I am also a bit confused by the question - but I think it is either:
a) Do SkyTeam airlines offer any routings in which LHR is a legitimate transfer point?; or:

b) Are there any routings on SkyTeam airlines for which it makes sense to use LHR as a transfer point?

Anyhow, either way I would answer "yes". In particular:

a) It should be noted that there is a difference between "SkyTeam" and "SkyTeam airlines". SkyTeam only sets the rules for a few fare types (eg: RTW or 'Go Europe' tickets), and these can generally be routed however you want (within certain restrictions). So, you could route such a ticket via LHR if you felt like it. However, the routing rules for most fares (eg: one-ways and returns) are set by the specific airline selling the ticket, and so the answer depends on that airline's rules. However, at least some routing rules for some specific fares on some SkyTeam airlines allow transfers in LHR (eg: DXB-NYC on KL allows DXB-AMS-JFK, but also DXB-AMS-LHR-JFK). I think this relates to the TATL Joint Venture with AF/KL/AZ/DL, but it only applies to some (by no means all) routes. And presumably MPM-based fares would also let you route via LHR if you so desire. And of course, if you're travelling on two separate tickets, you could make a connection in LHR (or anywhere else) if you wanted to.

b) This question relates to:
for example: why fly Minneapolis-Heathrow-Amsterdam when you can just fly direct Minneapolis-Amsterdam on a skyteam carrier

I can think of at least 5 good reasons to do such a routing:
- Schedule (as just one example: in the W13 timetable, the first direct flight in the morning from AMS to NYC arrives at 13:35 - but going via LHR you can be there at 13:00)
- Availability: a direct flight may be fully booked, while an indirect routing still has space available (this is presumably one of the the reasons why airlines allow non-direct options in their routing rules)
- Stopovers: admittedly, this isn't a regular connection, but you might want to combine a visit to London with your trip to MSP or JFK.
- Aircraft type: if for, say, a TATL flight the ex-LHR plane had AVOD or fully-flat beds in J, while the ex-AMS plane didn't, then it may well be worth detouring via LHR. However, I haven't looked at all the possible combinations to see whether this applies on any routes currently.
- The SkyTeam lounge at LHR/T4 :)

Anyone ever done a Skyteam connection at LHR????

IIRC, I've done single-ticket connections from KL to KQ, and KL to DL at LHR/T4. I've also done KL to AF (!) on separate tickets - but that was years ago (before AF moved to T4) and so involved a mad dash around the airport perimeter...

T4 is pretty compact (compared to CDG, etc), which makes transfers relatively easy - and if you have lounge access, then the SkyTeam lounge is great.

Heathrow is not a hub airport for any Skyteam airline, or perhaps more precisely, it is not the home-base of any Skyteam airline.
True - although (perhaps because they don't have any UK-based airlines) SkyTeam have tried to develop LHR/T4 as a 'virtual hub': SkyTeam Unveils New Alliance Facility at London Heathrow Airport (http://www.skyteam.com/en/About-us/Press/News/2009/SkyTeam-Unveils-New-Alliance-Facility-at-London-Heathrow-Airport/) (I'm sure they have a term for it, which isn't 'virtual hub', but is something similar).

Note that it seems MEA are still operating out of T3, not T4 for the moment - so a connection to/from BEY would be awkward.

But was it all Skyteam? If I'm not mistaken, AF stopped flying LHR-LYS direct about three years ago right?


Mea Culpa!

Went and checked my records... it was actually LIN-LHR-NBO (I knew it was somewhere other than home to Nairobi via Heathrow)

Yes but most of those destinations you can already fly direct

for example
why fly Minneapolis-Heathrow-Amsterdam when you can just fly direct Minneapolis-Amsterdam on a skyteam carrier

I was trying to find examples where by transferring through LHR is the easiest option

for example with Star Alliance BMI would fly into LHR from most UK airports and allow you to transfer onwards on United, Continental, Thai etc

does Skyteam do the same thing???? or are all skyteam connections mainly done in CDG and AMS?
You don't seem to understand what alliances are vs airlines are and about hubs.

The reason Star Alliance BMI would fly into LHR was because BMI was a British airline, and LHR was their hub. It had nothing do with it being Star Alliance. It just so happened that BMI went into Star Alliance. But now that BMI is no longer, there's no longer a Star Alliance airline based in LHR. Now British Airways (BA) is the only alliance-based British Airliine with a hub at LHR. (Virgin Atlantic also hubs at LHR, but is not part of any alliance AFAIK, though it may pertner individually with some airlines.)

So if you want to connect "easily" through LHR, your airline is BA, and your alliance is OneWolld. If you want to connect easily on ST, your (European) airline is KLM/AF, and your airports are AMS/CDG. If you want to conect easily on *A, your (Euroean) your dominant (European) airline is LH, and your dominent airport is FRA.

Airlines have chosen their hub airports, and provide lots of connections there. Airlines have chosen their aliance, and provide lots of connection to other airlines in their alliance, but mostly only at the hubs of one or another airline.

So since LHR is a BA (OW) hub, and has no *A airline hubbing there any more, and never had an ST airline huibing there, it's not going to be very practical most of the time to connect in LHR over AMS/CDG/etc for ST or FRA/etc for *A.

So if you want to connect in LHR, fly BA! If there's some reason you don't want to fly BA, then don't connect in LHR! It's that simple!

wrong thread - sorry!

I am also a bit confused by the question - but I think it is either:
a) Do SkyTeam airlines offer any routings in which LHR is a legitimate transfer point?; or:

b) Are there any routings on SkyTeam airlines for which it makes sense to use LHR as a transfer point?

Anyhow, either way I would answer "yes". In particular:

a) It should be noted that there is a difference between "SkyTeam" and "SkyTeam airlines". SkyTeam only sets the rules for a few fare types (eg: RTW or 'Go Europe' tickets), and these can generally be routed however you want (within certain restrictions). So, you could route such a ticket via LHR if you felt like it. However, the routing rules for most fares (eg: one-ways and returns) are set by the specific airline selling the ticket, and so the answer depends on that airline's rules. However, at least some routing rules for some specific fares on some SkyTeam airlines allow transfers in LHR (eg: DXB-NYC on KL allows DXB-AMS-JFK, but also DXB-AMS-LHR-JFK). I think this relates to the TATL Joint Venture with AF/KL/AZ/DL, but it only applies to some (by no means all) routes. And presumably MPM-based fares would also let you route via LHR if you so desire. And of course, if you're travelling on two separate tickets, you could make a connection in LHR (or anywhere else) if you wanted to.

b) This question relates to:


I can think of at least 5 good reasons to do such a routing:
- Schedule (as just one example: in the W13 timetable, the first direct flight in the morning from AMS to NYC arrives at 13:35 - but going via LHR you can be there at 13:00)
- Availability: a direct flight may be fully booked, while an indirect routing still has space available (this is presumably one of the the reasons why airlines allow non-direct options in their routing rules)
- Stopovers: admittedly, this isn't a regular connection, but you might want to combine a visit to London with your trip to MSP or JFK.
- Aircraft type: if for, say, a TATL flight the ex-LHR plane had AVOD or fully-flat beds in J, while the ex-AMS plane didn't, then it may well be worth detouring via LHR. However, I haven't looked at all the possible combinations to see whether this applies on any routes currently.
- The SkyTeam lounge at LHR/T4 :)



IIRC, I've done single-ticket connections from KL to KQ, and KL to DL at LHR/T4. I've also done KL to AF (!) on separate tickets - but that was years ago (before AF moved to T4) and so involved a mad dash around the airport perimeter...

T4 is pretty compact (compared to CDG, etc), which makes transfers relatively easy - and if you have lounge access, then the SkyTeam lounge is great.


True - although (perhaps because they don't have any UK-based airlines) SkyTeam have tried to develop LHR/T4 as a 'virtual hub': SkyTeam Unveils New Alliance Facility at London Heathrow Airport (http://www.skyteam.com/en/About-us/Press/News/2009/SkyTeam-Unveils-New-Alliance-Facility-at-London-Heathrow-Airport/) (I'm sure they have a term for it, which isn't 'virtual hub', but is something similar).

Note that it seems MEA are still operating out of T3, not T4 for the moment - so a connection to/from BEY would be awkward.

thanks!!!!!!!!! explained it well.......I get it now :D

I can think of at least 5 good reasons to do such a routing:
- Schedule (as just one example: in the W13 timetable, the first direct flight in the morning from AMS to NYC arrives at 13:35 - but going via LHR you can be there at 13:00)
- Availability: a direct flight may be fully booked, while an indirect routing still has space available (this is presumably one of the the reasons why airlines allow non-direct options in their routing rules)
- Stopovers: admittedly, this isn't a regular connection, but you might want to combine a visit to London with your trip to MSP or JFK.
- Aircraft type: if for, say, a TATL flight the ex-LHR plane had AVOD or fully-flat beds in J, while the ex-AMS plane didn't, then it may well be worth detouring via LHR. However, I haven't looked at all the possible combinations to see whether this applies on any routes currently.
- The SkyTeam lounge at LHR/T4 :)

- Adding qualifying legs to your itinary at very attractive prices could be one.

the lounge is much better than any ST hub airport lounge IMHO (I know JOUY31 disagrees with me on the basis of the wine ;) )

I hope you change your mind when you go through S4 :). I've never experienced the lounges at ICN. How would you rate them against the Bordeaux Supérieur ;) lounge at T4?

I hope you change your mind when you go through S4 :). I've never experienced the lounges at ICN. How would you rate them against the Bordeaux Supérieur ;) lounge at T4?

I hope so too but haven't had a chance yet! - Re-ICN, everyone here knows I like KE a lot and always use the airline with great pleasure but I have never understood why people get so excited about the lounges which I find mediocre at best. Seating is ok but not overly comfortable (I really like the AZ loungers for instance even though I'm not particularly keen on AZ lounges), there is hot food but by Asian lounge standards it is mediocre and very repetitive, drinks selection is poor (you'd dream of a Bordeaux superieur there! ;) ), showers are OK but again AF, CI, or AZ ones are nicer (they are admittedly nicer than KL's and also than DL's in most airports). So to me, ICN lounges are no model.

BTW, the principle of the LHR T4 lounge is that the different airlines are responsible to showcase their home country in various aspects of the food, drink, etc, so if there is Bordeaux Superieur it's probably AF's fault ;) [which, given my dealings with AF UK over the years would not really come as such a surprise I'm afraid, I really do think they are historically far meaner than average...)

With regards to the KE ICN lounge I found it top notch; mostly because of the food offerings ^ In general most airport lounges are the same really, except some have egg shaped chairs, some with plants growing out the walls and others with fantastic views of planes arriving/departing... I get quite bored (quickly) sitting in these BUT it beats looking for a seat with the masses ;)

With regards to the KE ICN lounge I found it top notch; mostly because of the food offerings ^ In general most airport lounges are the same really, except some have egg shaped chairs, some with plants growing out the walls and others with fantastic views of planes arriving/departing... I get quite bored (quickly) sitting in these BUT it beats looking for a seat with the masses ;)

I agree that most lounges are the same

I have however heard wonders about the Emirates first lounge at DXB which apparently has a swimming pool in it.

With regards to the KE ICN lounge I found it top notch; mostly because of the food offerings ^ In general most airport lounges are the same really, except some have egg shaped chairs, some with plants growing out the walls and others with fantastic views of planes arriving/departing... I get quite bored (quickly) sitting in these BUT it beats looking for a seat with the masses ;)

I actually don't find the food in the ICN KE lounge all that good myself. As for the all the same, apart from some of the very important elements that you mention (such as a nice tarmac view ;) ), some have great loungers or even relaxing rooms, which make a real difference for long waits, some have massage areas which make a difference (here indeed, AF fares well alongside QF, BA, etc), some have nice showers which I very much appreciate (again, AF does well in this regard, and this time BA doesn't).

I can think of at least 5 good reasons to do such a routing:
- Schedule (as just one example: in the W13 timetable, the first direct flight in the morning from AMS to NYC arrives at 13:35 - but going via LHR you can be there at 13:00)
- Aircraft type: if for, say, a TATL flight the ex-LHR plane had AVOD or fully-flat beds in J, while the ex-AMS plane didn't, then it may well be worth detouring via LHR. However, I haven't looked at all the possible combinations to see whether this applies on any routes currently.
- The SkyTeam lounge at LHR/T4 :)


I booked JFK-LHR-AMS once rather than JFK-AMS n/s.

JFK-LHR was DL operated with flat beds, vs angled lie flats on the JFK-AMS flights (DL or KL). Added perks included getting into AMS later (so more likely that my hotel would be ready) and yeah, the lounge :)

That said, there were about 800 moving walkways from plane to security recheck...

I actually don't find the food in the ICN KE lounge all that good myself.

Even when comparing what's on offer in CDG and/or AMS?

Even when comparing what's on offer in CDG and/or AMS?

No, I find it clearly less bad than CDG (not tried S4 with the new hot food concept) and even more so than KLM, but also less good than LHR T4, or the standard BA, CX, or QF F lounges (all accessible to all emerald gold), probably even than their J lounges or than NZ's.

FWIW, Aeromexico are also about to start flights to LHR: Aeromexico faces formidable challenges in making new London Heathrow flights viable (http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/aeromexico-faces-formidable-challenges-in-making-new-london-heathrow-flights-viable-85417).

However, the article notes that there AM has "limited connection opportunities at Heathrow" and that "SkyTeam partner services are few" (only 7% of LHR's seating capacity, apparently).

No, I find it clearly less bad than CDG (not tried S4 with the new hot food concept) and even more so than KLM, but also less good than LHR T4

Oh my!

By "Less bad" I presume you mean better, or "not as bad"?

And by "less good" I presume you mean worse, or "not as good"?

The "even more so" - with reference to "less bad" - has totally stumped me. More less bad? What does that mean??? :confused:

However, the article notes that there AM has "limited connection opportunities at Heathrow" and that "SkyTeam partner services are few" (only 7% of LHR's seating capacity, apparently).

Somewhat like I found the original question a bit weird, and missing the point, I think that that article is also a bit missing the point.

Aeromexico serves Paris and Madrid, two SkyTeam hubs, from which Aeromexico can codeshare with AF or UX on those European routes that it believes its customers would benefit from having a codeshare. And even if it doesn't codeshare on all options, its customers will be able to find their way onto UX or AF flights that get them to where they want to end up.

Obviously, a passenger will eventually reach their intended destinatinon - they don't always have to/need to connect on to another airline, from every point served in the network. There are (currently) only 4 direct weekly services between MEX and all London airports, operated by British Airways. Perhaps Aeromexico believes that there is enough demand for London and the South-East, in general, to start flights there, regardless of the paucity of onward SkyTeam connections. London is a major international hub, but let's not forget that it is also a huge destination in and of itself.

Somewhat like I found the original question a bit weird, and missing the point, I think that that article is also a bit missing the point.


I agree. The article states "traffic to the UK represents about 1% of the international passenger traffic from Mexico", but surely this is because there are so few direct flights? I have made three trips to Mexico and none were direct (two via the US and one with AF via CDG).

Somewhat like I found the original question a bit weird, and missing the point, I think that that article is also a bit missing the point.Agree with your comment re the OP but, OTOH, the CAPA article makes sense if you read it for what it purports to do, i.e. explaining why they think that AM will struggle with its new MEX-LHR service.
They explain that:
1) there is little O&D between Mexico and the UK;
2) AM cannot rely on any meaningful transfer traffic at the LON end;
3) they compete with BA who dominate the route and can, unlike AM, rely on such transfer traffic.

At no point do they suggest that anybody should have an expectation of substantial ST transfer traffic at LHR. They are merely making a statement of fact that there is no such traffic and that this is one of the reason why the decision by AM to launch MEX-LHR is rather surprising and that one can have doubt as to its long-term viability.