LHR
 

Just saw where BA is moving their san-phx- and den flights from LGW to LHR. How can this happen and Delta can't even get one LHR slot. I thought Bermuda Two limited what cities could get LHR flights.

BA already has slots and they're a UK-based carrier.

Only AA and UA have access to LHR. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

This is true, Bermuda2 only allows 29 gateways to LON and of them, only 12 may be from LHR. Right now, those twelve are occupied by: BOS, JFK, EWR, PHL, IAD, BWI, MIA, DTW, ORD, SEA, SFO, and LAX....

So unless BA plans to move DTW, SEA, and BWI [where it is the only LHR provider] to LGW, then it must know something we dont......



------------------
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
~ConcordeBoy

The British carriers have the right to move some of the cities. For example, LON-PIT became LON-LAS when BA ended its relationship with US and hooked up with AA.

If DL did get 7 LHR slots for "peak time" do you think they would start JFK-LHR or ATL-LHR first?

Personally, I prefer Gatwick to Heathrow, and do not look forward to the day when Delta is successful with its campaign to transfer flights to Heathrow.

They filed several years ago with the government, saying they wanted 4 JFK, 3 ATL, and 2 each CVG and BOS to LHR, if memory serves. No ranking, though. My suspicion is that ATL would move first, then add JFK, then move or add any others.

------------------
"Service" should be a noun, not a verb.
Delta Flyers' Guide

Bermuda II actually specifies the gateways permitted. A synopsis below :

a) Only two US and two UK airlines may operate to the US from LHR. Currently these are UA, AA, BA and VS.

b) ONLY the following cities may be served by US airlines from London : ANC, ATL, BOS, CLT, CHI, CVG, CLE, DFW, DTT, HOU, LAX, MIA, MSP, NYC(%), PHL, PIT(*), SFO(%), SEA, STL, WAS(%)

c) ONLY the following cities may be served by UK airlines from London : ATL, BOS, CLT, CHI, DFW, DEN, DTT, HOU, LAS(*), LAX, MIA, NYC(%), ORL, PHL, PHX, PIT, SAN, SFO(%), SEA, TPA, WAS(%)

d) ONLY the following cities may be served from Heathrow : ANC, BOS, CHI, DTT, LAX, MIA, MSP(@), NYC, PHL, SFO, SEA, WAS(%)

e) Some destinations are switchable with unused destinations. The other approved gateways without current service are FLL, HNL, MKC, PDX, MSY

f) No service to any cities mentioned in (e) may be introduced without dropping an existing route on either side.

g) Any US city may be served from any other UK airport (including STN) with no restrictions.

h) Each country may designate only TWO routes on which TWO of its carriers may compete. Every remaining route must have only one carrier from each side. However, if the number of passengers carried TOTALLY on the route (including traffic carried by fifth freedom carriers Air India, Air New Zealand and Kuwait Airways) exceeds 600,000 in two consecutive years, or if the number of passengers carried by any single airline exceeds 450,000 for two consecutive years, then each side may designate an additional airline to serve the route.

* - LAS was approved as an additional service destination in an April 2000 modification to the agreement in exchange for PIT being approved as a US carrier gateway.

@ - Service on LHR-MSP may be operated by a US carrier only. UK carriers may not service MSP.

% - NYC includes JFK/EWR. WAS includes IAD/BWI. SFO includes SFO/OAK/SJC.

Such a wonderful explanatory subject header.

B747:

Excellent summary of why LHR (via PA/TW sell-offs) is for a very long time going to be the province of only AA/UA (unless they sell them off)...I will assume that with MKC you really mean MKE.

On a like note, me thinks you are much more of a finance guy than I am when it comes to the things with wings, so (I know this is way off topic - but I felt strange posting it on the AA topic) over on the AA group the other day, when you came to your Q1-Q2 financial 'report cards' on the U.S. majors, you alluded to the fact that Fred Reid has shifted DL away from a traditional airline yield management model. I haven't read much on this specific aspect of DL's new business model since Leo took over.

Under the new model you mention, is DL's CFO now focused more on traditional fixed/variable expenses vs. current/future revenue forcasting models that are more common in traditional businesses, rather than just playing the traditional RASM/CASM yield spread game?

Thanks in advance for your insight...

Is the assumptiuon, at least as fare a Delta goes, that service would be to either LGW or LHR? Do either AA or UA provide service to both London airports?

Jeff

American serves both Gatwick and Heathrow. The key reason is that Bermuda II prevents them from flying from their biggest hub (DFW) to Heathrow, so they maintain the LGW station for the DFW flight. AA also operates a daily RDU-LGW trip (operated by a 777, 767-300 in the low season) which is rumored to be one of the airline's most profitable routes, thanks to lots of premium passengers commuting from Research Triangle companies to London.

United does not operate to LGW because, presumably, all but one of their hubs (DEN) can have service to Heathrow. While I'm sure United would like a nonstop from Denver to London, it is not so important as to warrant an entirely new station (LGW) to be opened and maintained to support the flight. Thus, Denver passengers can fly to LHR on a one-stop 777 flight through Newark, or connect at IAD/ORD/BOS. Passengers who could find a Denver connection to London convenient can be easily accomodated through United's hubs at SFO/LAX/ORD/IAD.

For some reason, this clause is confusing me. Is this talking about all USA-LON routes or just USA-LHR?

The following cities have service on both United and America to London:
BOS, NYC (EWR/JFK both), LAX, ORD
So do two of these cities meet the clause whereby they deserve a new carrier?

All of the cities mentioned actually meet this threshold, as does SFO.

MKC = Kansas City, MO

How ironic that this topic has come up.

http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/020731/airlines_britain_3.html