British Airways may return to Gatwick as pilots vote on an improved offer

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.

• JoR says:

  3 Oct3 October 21:13

  Can BA un-cancel the already moved flights from Gatwick to Heathrow? If so, would that impact one’s ability to move or cancel the original booking?

  • Rob says:

    3 Oct3 October 21:30

    BA is only looking at basing 17 aircraft at Gatwick next year. This is not enough to operate the schedule as it was planned so some flights will not move back.

    • Neil says:

      3 Oct3 October 23:21

      How many SH aircraft did BA have at LGW pre-Covid?

      • Chrisasaurus says:

        4 Oct4 October 05:58

        30+ according to the article

• ChrisC says:

  3 Oct3 October 23:12

  “The climbdown by BALPA is surprising.”

  “What has caused this climbdown by British Airways?”

  So who has actually climbed down then?

  Looks to me like it was BA by improving the offer – likely on instructions from Luis Gallego in Madrid.

  BALPA gets to look reasonable by putting the new offer to its members which would be brownie points in any future negotiations or court cases.

  If BA reinstate LGW – AMS then I’ll insist they move me back there from LHR / LCY at no cost because like many others I only switched because of BA cancelling the ex LGW flights in the first place.

  • Nick says:

    4 Oct4 October 00:54

    I’m sure I’ll get yelled at by the BALPA PR team that appears to have taken up residency on HfP for saying this… but it was a union climbdown that BA agreed to window-dress with a few shuffled papers to let them save face. BALPA asked to go back to the table when the cancellations hit the other day and reality set in that BA were serious.

    Oh, and by the way for ChrisC’s benefit… Luis is based in London, not Madrid.

    • Mikeact says:

      4 Oct4 October 08:25

      Well said Nick..100%.

    • ChrisC says:

      4 Oct4 October 08:45

      I’m not part of the BALPA PR team but you sound like part of the BA PR team.

      • AJA says:

        4 Oct4 October 09:24

        As a customer I don’t really care who climbed down. All I want is for BA to fly from both LGW and LHR (and MAN, NCL, GLA, EDI, etc) to places I want to fly to and for them to sell tickets at fair prices. The extra choice is good for customers. This backtracking, whoever blinked first, is welcome.

        • AJA says:

          4 Oct4 October 09:26

          Plus I want lounge access at outstations and decent service and food on board in CE and CW.

        • Michael Jennings says:

          4 Oct4 October 09:33

          Gatwick is much easier for me to get to than Heathrow and so is my preferred airport, so I would like there to be a BA presence at Gatwick.

          But if they are not going to, I would like them to get on with giving up the slots, so that some other airline can use them.

        • David S says:

          4 Oct4 October 09:40

          +1

    • Doug M says:

      4 Oct4 October 09:33

      To be fair Nick, to have credibility with a post like this you need to say how you know this. Given that’s a very unlikely thing for a real insider to do on comments section like this, your version is just the thoughts of another Internet random like the rest of us.

• roberto says:

  3 Oct3 October 23:33

  Great, just finished sorting out my trips to CTA and JER that were originally booked from Malaga connecting out of Gatwick and moved to Heathrow. Was a right PITA switching flights/days, hotels and car hire and if I have to swap it all back I will be mighty peeved…..

  • Sam G says:

    4 Oct4 October 12:30

    As Rob says – they weren’t planning as many frames at LGW so some had to move anyway (especially if BA need to utilise their LHR slots fully) so I don’t think we’ll see anything move back. Perhaps routes like Malaga will see some additional frequencies added back at LGW at some point

• ChasP says:

  4 Oct4 October 00:39

  maybe someone at IAG has Amex Plat business and read the article by Rhys in todays Sunday Times

  makes as much sense as any other explanation

• Alan says:

  4 Oct4 October 00:41

  Gatwick was never great for domestic to long haul connections so I’d prefer they just consolidated things really.

  • Julian says:

    4 Oct4 October 09:53

    Until there is a third runway at Heathrow BA is going to need Gatwick again post pandemic as flights and travel pick up.

    Hence it is inevitable they will resume operation at Gatwick at some point and of course if they pulled out completely for a while (conveniently the upcoming winter when they operate far less bucket and spade flights) this would only strengthen their hand in negotiations with cabin crew and pilot unions about resuming flight operations at Gatwick (which without BA is going to remain well below capacity for some time, although I presume Ryanair and/or Wizz would like to develop bases there with the vacated slots).

    As long as more flights and more jobs in total were involved in the resumption (rather than jobs being cannibalised from Heathrow to Gatwick on lower wages) the Unions would have little alternative but to agree.

    Also the way things look right now an additional runway at Gatwick still looks as though it may happen considerably sooner than at Heathrow (via upgrading the existing taxi way to increase takeoff and landing frequency even though I believe the takeoffs and landings could not be simultaneous) so again it may be BA’s best bet for long term expansion if indeed the future direction of air travel in the UK is one of expansion rather than contraction due to Green and Global Warming concerns.

    • Doug M says:

      4 Oct4 October 11:52

      My understanding of the 2nd Gatwick runway, it’s more of ‘smart runway’ than a second runway. Is it planned to still only be for take off of short haul aircraft?

      • Julian says:

        4 Oct4 October 13:24

        No the revised proposal is to move the centre line of the emergency runway by 39 feet so that it can be used at the same as the current main runway for both takeoffs and landings. The consultation period regarding this proposal is ongoing.

        See https://simpleflying.com/gatwick-second-runway-plans

        • Doug M says:

          4 Oct4 October 16:47

          No? Your link confirms what I said
          “The airport’s Northern Runway is currently used as a taxiway and standby to its Main Runway. Under proposals, the new runway would be used for takeoffs only and accommodate smaller aircraft, with the Main Runway used for all landings.”

• George K says:

  4 Oct4 October 01:15

  I hope it happens. I favour Gatwick for many reasons, but more than anything I’d like to have it as an option for inbound flights to avoid the lottery of Heathrow’s immigration queues. Pre-pandemic, if there was an LCY/LGW option for return, I’d take it.

  Best of luck.

• Lee says:

  4 Oct4 October 06:47

  Climbdown??….BALPA and the pilots never climb down. They give with one hand and take twice with another…and look after themselves forgetting the rest of their colleagues at BA.

• Dave T says:

  4 Oct4 October 08:37

  I believe pilots that are flying now will still be paying part of earnings towards the pilots that are sat at home doing nothing so i think they would vote for a return to Gatwick operations and obviously the pilots that are not working at the moment would also vote for a return to Gatwick flying , also as a regular passenger from the south coast i would love BA to return to Gatwick , Heathrow is a nightmare to get to , plus i prefer the Gatwick lounge

  • Mikeact says:

    4 Oct4 October 08:51

    That seems a pretty reasonable comment that makes sense.

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.