Then why has CO opened EDI and BRS since then, but made no noise about returning to STN? They must know something.

It doesn't make much economic sense for a long-haul carrier to fly to more than one airport serving the same town. People who want to fly from London to New York will go to whatever airport their preferred carrier flies from or whatever airport gives them the best deal for the date and time they want to travel. By serving both STN and LHR long-haul carriers would simply be spreading their business over two places, I doubt they would be gaining any extra business.

The London airports each have their own niche. STN's niche are primarily LCCs (I must actually confess I was surprised to see Eos and Maxjet succeed there). I can't see any of the majors setting up additional bases there or move from their established bases at LGW or LHR.

I guess then we need to await the arrival of long-haul trans-Atlantic low fare carriers.

A number of all-business class carriers recently spun up:

MaxJet
EOS
Silverjet
L'Avion
Indigo Jet

I guess there is a market for such a thing despite the lack of FF miles, etc. We shall see where it leads to.

Exactly. I don't see why it would make much financial sense for trans-atlantic carriers to fly to both STN and LHR.

MaxJet, EOS, Silverjet, L'Avion, Indigo Jet: We shall see if any of them are still in the air two years from now. Even if some make the JFK route go, they'll then expand to other markets ex-STN, then promptly implode. Those who do not remember the lessons of history, etc., etc.

They do... It's called cash :)

For the EDI route, the Scottish Executive picked up some of the costs of starting and then operating the route and the SouthWest Development Agency have done something very similar for the BRS route. The local agencies have done it to grow the local airports and economies.

The local planners at STN have just rejected the expansion plans (forcing it to a long and protracted public enquiry). They have hordes of LCC there and probably aren't quite so keen to offer subsidies!

Hey, CO and Ryanair have something in common - they fly to oddball destintations where they get nice local deals! Hope CO doesn't follow the FR mantra too far! ;)

Cheers,
Jason

Its more likely you will see more US carriers at LHR rather now with BA possibly pulling out of LGW (and tatl's that go out of LGW), and possibly against bermuda II

I agree that the main point is that STN primarily serves London, and that serving multiple LON airports isn't that economical. However, STN does also serve the East of England (I can't imagine TATLs going into NWI or CBG!). If a major airline could see a market there... It could very well support a connecting long-haul service. Just look at the powerful tech/pharm centre Cambridge has created for itself, plenty business there!

I think experienced travels and people within Europe who patronize low-csot Ryanair Easyjet carrier types understand that sometimes a flight to London is not always a flight to London, as in when it is to somewhere an hour away like Stansted. I think your average infrequent traveler from America would be horrified to fly into some place that far from their desired destination, if that would actually be revealed before they landed and discovered they had quite a hike coming and even more so to catch an early flight out of London from Stansted.

A little useless nugget of information; Turkish Airlines flies to both LHR and STN.

But I agree with your assessment. The t/atl market is highly competitive, even with Bermuda II so there is little to be gained from opening yet another factor into that equation by flying into STN.

As do OK, KM, CY, LY and PK.

I wonder how many are through choice, and how many through lack of available & affordable slots?

Distance to London Center -
Gatwick - 28 miles
Heathrow - 15 miles
Luton - 35 miles
Stansted - 30 miles

Stansted is on par with Gatwick in distance from central London, which is flown by many US major airlines. Stansted offers a train from the terminal to Liverpool Street, as does Gatwick. To the average traveler from the US what difference does this make?

Average traveler from the US does not seem to be complaining about Tokyo Naritia whose notorious distance from the center is well know. Then again, Japanese trains and the British rail are another matter entirely.

The early flight hassle is because most of the Americans going to Stansted do not do their homework well, or are cheap, and instead of paying for the train take the bus. Then they get stuck in central London traffic. Whereas they pay the same amount to take the Gatwick or Heathrow express, but do not consider a high cost because they are most likely catching their trans-Atlantic flights.

Secondly, Stansted can be very convenient depending what part of London you are traveling to. Heathrow Express is good if you are going to West London/Paddington area. For many people who travel to North or East London traveling on a train from Stansted can be quick and cheaper than going from Heathrow.

CSA offers flights to both STN and LHR. I guess it's a matter of choice. Again, Stansted may be more convenient depending where a person wants to go in London.

How are you measuring city center? According to this: http://www.autoeurope.com/guides/Uni...n-airports.cfm

Stanstead is 40 miles away, not 30. That makes a big difference. What is your source for this data?