Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Delta Air Lines | SkyMiles
Reload this Page >

Delta returns to London Gatwick - its first trans-Atlantic destination

Delta returns to London Gatwick - its first trans-Atlantic destination

Old Apr 7, 19, 11:20 am
  #61  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 325
Originally Posted by cmd320 View Post
I'm not really aware of any issues with the 757s going westbound from London to JFK/BOS...
Trust me there are issues or I just imagined all those flights were we pulled payload and sweated the fuel burn at every checkpoint while watching the arrival weather like a hawk!
Jeff767 is offline  
Old Apr 7, 19, 10:18 pm
  #62  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brighton. UK
Programs: BA Gold / VS /IHG Platinum & Ambassador
Posts: 10,682
Originally Posted by ElmhurstNick View Post
One big advantage of LGW over LHR for Y/PE passengers has been that you can buy fast track arrivals at LGW for 7 GBP, regardless of status. I prefer LHR on VS because of the 330 2-3-2 instead of the 747 2-4-2 on the lower deck, but being out of the airport 15 minutes after landing is a big deal vs. an hour or more slogging through LHR T3 customs.

That will be mitigated somewhat by LHR allowing electronic reading of US passports in the future, but it's still LHR arrivals...
use of the e-gates will also apply to LGw In fact any U.K. airport that has them. Itís not a LHR specific thing.
UKtravelbear is online now  
Old Apr 7, 19, 11:03 pm
  #63  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NYC
Programs: DL PM as of 12/8/2016
Posts: 1,817
Why LGW? Blah

help me understand why anyone coming from the US would prefer flying into LGW over LHR??

Further from the city. Terrible and £33 transport to Victoria station for the tube. Just donít get it.

I thought LGW was mostly for international travel going east. Why is Delta bothering with this route at all?

Im Piccadilly service from LHR all the way. Letís go.

mridley2 is offline  
Old Apr 7, 19, 11:32 pm
  #64  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by mridley2 View Post
help me understand why anyone coming from the US would prefer flying into LGW over LHR??

Further from the city. Terrible and £33 transport to Victoria station for the tube. Just donít get it.

I thought LGW was mostly for international travel going east. Why is Delta bothering with this route at all?

Im Piccadilly service from LHR all the way. Letís go.
As of a year or two ago, you can take the express from LGW to Victoria on Oyster for I think £6. I still prefer LHR for the Virgin Clubhouse, but LGW is just about as accessible an often faster to reach from much of London.

Now, Luton would suck. Iíve done that once or twice and hope never again. But LGW is a perfectly serviceable airport and better than most Iíve been through.
gregsfortytwo is offline  
Old Apr 8, 19, 5:58 am
  #65  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Programs: Delta Diamond, Marriott Ambassador & Lifetime Titanium, Hertz President's Circle, United Silver
Posts: 6,331
Originally Posted by gregsfortytwo View Post
As of a year or two ago, you can take the express from LGW to Victoria on Oyster for I think £6.
It takes 30 minutes. By contrast, the Heathrow Express takes 15 minutes.

For Uber, a ride from Westminster to Gatwick is between £65 ($84) and £87 ($113). To Heathrow, Uber is between £30 ($39) and £40 ($52).
hockeyinsider is offline  
Old Apr 8, 19, 6:29 am
  #66  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Programs: DL 1 million, AA 1 mil, HH lapsed Diamond, Marriott Plat
Posts: 28,174
Not everyone is leaving London from Westminster. Gatwick is a viable airport, as its count of 46 million passengers last year (as big as Newark) and 2.8 million non-stop passengers to the U.S. (as big as Dubai) do attest.
3Cforme is offline  
Old Apr 8, 19, 6:41 am
  #67  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: NYC
Programs: B6 Mosaic
Posts: 721
Originally Posted by 3Cforme View Post
Not everyone is leaving London from Westminster. Gatwick is a viable airport, as its count of 46 million passengers last year (as big as Newark) and 2.8 million non-stop passengers to the U.S. (as big as Dubai) do attest.
Unless I'm connecting through, I prefer LGW as it leaves me closer to where I usually stay and the train access is now an added bonus.
MSYtoJFKagain is offline  
Old Apr 8, 19, 7:46 am
  #68  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: LHR / BHX / MAN / ATL
Programs: DL DM MM - IHG Spire
Posts: 3,828
Originally Posted by mridley2 View Post
help me understand why anyone coming from the US would prefer flying into LGW over LHR??

Further from the city. Terrible and £33 transport to Victoria station for the tube. Just donít get it.

I thought LGW was mostly for international travel going east. Why is Delta bothering with this route at all?

Im Piccadilly service from LHR all the way. Letís go.

1. Because someone has a need to be somewhere else in the UK besides London (yes, there is more to the UK than London). LGW to Brighton is 30 minutes. LHR to Brighton is 1 hour on the tube, connection time at VIC, and 1 hour on Southern - total travel time well over 2 hours. LGW has a mainline rail station, opening up the rest of the UK, even north.

2. There are other options for LGW-London. Southern and Thameslink operate services for less ₤₤. They make a couple of stops, but only add about 5 minutes to the journey time.

3. HEX is the creation of savvy marketers. Yes, it gets you from LHR to PAD in 15 minutes journey time, but then what? Unless your business is at the Paddington Hilton, you have to take at least one (or more) tube lines to get anywhere else. For my journey to Brighton, it would be HEX from LHR to PAD, tube from PAD to VIC, then Southern from VIC to BTN. I've spent more money but haven't shortened my journey by any significant amount.

4. DL is bothering with this route because they perceive (correctly or incorrectly, only time will tell) that there is $$ to be made. It truly is just that simple.
ecaarch is offline  
Old Apr 8, 19, 8:23 am
  #69  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,246
Originally Posted by bennos View Post
I think the rumors are the B6 would head to LGW, not LHR, where (especially if they have a UK partner) it would be at least somewhat easier to get slots. The rumors also suggest a somewhat different configuration (more J seats? hints of a W cabin), though overall of course they'd start out smaller than AA/BA or DL/VS (though not much smaller than UA without a JV partner). But by going after Premium Leisure out of LGW they're aiming for a different segment than Business Travelers into LHR (which tbh isn't really more convenient than LGW, depending on your destination), plus presumably support for their corporate contracts out of the northeast.

It's enough to get traction and it's enough to change pricing dynamics. (Remember when B6 effectively killed Saturday night stay requirements in the US domestic market? They were a lot smaller back then than they are now. Remember when B6 introduced $600 fares to the premium TCON market? Mint was a lot smaller back then than it was now.)



Onward connections will depend on whether or not they get a UK partner airline. The "non-stop" argument is a bit of a red herring, most TATL itineraries already require a connection on one or both ends, excepting of course top markets like NYC-LON.



I suspect B6, like the legacies, will be a lot better off if they can get feed on both ends rather than very specific point to point operations, but I'm just armchair CEO'ing.
I think B6 might have to settle for LGW, but they wrote several memos to the DOT attacking DL/VS as well as BA/AA and demanding remedy slots be given to them at LHR...that is a prime reason I suspect DL announced the LGW flights...just as a thumb in B6's eye.

Onward connections or not, I really don't think that's the play for B6.

I think they could be much more disruptive in the domestic market because by getting all of those slots at JFK, LAX, SFO, and BOS they were in a prime position to increase capacity and drive down fares and change fare rules. B6 could add more flights to JFK and BOS than anyone. to LON whether LGW or LHR, they just aren't going to have the same advantages being able to just flood the market with capacity to drive fares down and rely on their lower costs to keep them going. Plus LON, the base fare could be $3 and the ticket is already practically $1,000 with all the taxes further limiting B6's ability to drive fares down.

And I'm not sure how much but I'm willing to bet at least 60% of the J traffic between NYC and LON is connected in some way to a corporate contract. Unless LON is virtually their only international destination I don't know how viable B6 is going to do in London as both DL/VS and AA/BA are going to go to the mattresses for it.

I think they would be much better off if they want to focus on high end leisure, looking on JFK/BOS to DUB, SNN, EDI, KEF and get their feet wet internationally taking on some routes that aren't as heavily defended. Because if there is a stumble, which there is highly likely to be when entering an entirely new market, many people with the $$$ for the front of the cabin might be scared off to already well established carriers.
kop84 is offline  
Old Apr 8, 19, 8:34 am
  #70  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Programs: DL 1 million, AA 1 mil, HH lapsed Diamond, Marriott Plat
Posts: 28,174
Originally Posted by kop84 View Post
Plus LON, the base fare could be $3 and the ticket is already practically $1,000 with all the taxes further limiting B6's ability to drive fares down.
That's a bit of exaggeration that is unhelpful here. A $378 coach ticket BOS-LHR-BOS (sold by Delta, actually) has $228 in U.S., UK and London airport taxes and fees.

From ITA Matrix:

US International Departure Tax (US)$37.20
US September 11th Security Fee (AY)$5.60US
Passenger Facility Charge (XF)$4.50
United Kingdom Air Passenger Duty APD (GB)$102.40
United Kingdom Passenger Service Charge Departures (UB)$61.20
United States Immigration User Fee (XY)$7.00
United States Customs User Fee (YC)$5.77
United States APHIS Passenger Fee Passengers (XA)$3.96
3Cforme is offline  
Old Apr 8, 19, 8:37 am
  #71  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Programs: Delta Diamond, Marriott Ambassador & Lifetime Titanium, Hertz President's Circle, United Silver
Posts: 6,331
Originally Posted by ecaarch View Post
DL is bothering with this route because they perceive (correctly or incorrectly, only time will tell) that there is $$ to be made. It truly is just that simple.
Many people disagree. They think it's all about JetBlue. Time will tell. This is kind of important given that Delta hasn't said whether the Gatwick flights will be Delta-operated or Virgin Atlantic-operated.

Do we even know if it's more than one flight a day?
hockeyinsider is offline  
Old Apr 8, 19, 8:43 am
  #72  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brighton. UK
Programs: BA Gold / VS /IHG Platinum & Ambassador
Posts: 10,682
Distance from LHR to Paddington or LGW to Victoria is a ridiculous comparison. Nor are false comparisons of the costs of that trip helpful. Anyone paying £33 for the GEX to Victoria needs their head - and sense of priorities - examining.

You need to validly compare the distance to your end point and LGW is better placed for central and east London (and other places in the UK) than LHR.

There was a thread recently on the BA Board about why BA didn't operate flights from Jersey to LHR but did to LGW because "It's loaded with status passengers and those willing to pay for Club Europe so they should go to LHR because of that". The reason why is because the vast majority of passengers were headed to the finance houses in the City and LGW was quicker and easier for them to get to from LGW than LHR.
UKtravelbear is online now  
Old Apr 8, 19, 10:05 am
  #73  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: RDU/CHI
Programs: DL Plat, BA Silver, WN A-, AA LT Gold, IHG S/KIC, NCR EC
Posts: 12,059
Originally Posted by mridley2 View Post
help me understand why anyone coming from the US would prefer flying into LGW over LHR??

Further from the city. Terrible and £33 transport to Victoria station for the tube. Just donít get it.

I thought LGW was mostly for international travel going east. Why is Delta bothering with this route at all?

Im Piccadilly service from LHR all the way. Letís go.

For arrivals, LGW has 7GBP for fast-track immigraiton, and take the train to London Bridge or Blackfriars instead of Victoria and avoid the Gatwick Express surcharge.

That said, I usually stay in Hammersmith so LHR is still more practical even after an interminable wait in immigration at T3. I've been going through T3 immigration for nearly 30 years (United, then American, now Virgin Atlantic) and it's been garbage almost every time.
ElmhurstNick is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread