Maximise your Avios, air miles and hotel points

London City Airport wants to welcome A320neos. But will they come?

Links on Head for Points may support the site by paying a commission.  See here for all partner links.

In an unexpected announcement, London City Airport has applied for permission to welcome larger aircraft than it currently accepts.

The news was broken by Sky News on Sunday night and confirmed with an official press release on Monday morning.

The airport has submitted an application to the Civil Aviation Authority that, if approved, would allow Airbus A320neo aircraft to use its runways. It would become the largest aircraft to be allowed to fly in and out of London City, offering an additional 50 or so seats over the Airbus A220-100.

London City Airport wants to welcome A320neos

London City Airport is not your typical airport

London City Airport already operates under unusual circumstances. Its central location in the Royal Docks means that it is only allowed to operate flights during very specific times. There are no flights between 10:30pm and 6am during the week, whilst flights between 6am and 7am are strictly limited to reduce noise for local residents. Meanwhile, the airport closes entirely between 1pm on Saturdays and 12:30pm on Sundays.

It is not just its proximity to residential areas that causes problems. Its short runway is just 1,500m, less than half of both Gatwick (3,316m) and Stansted (3,048m), limiting the size and weight of aircraft that can land.

In addition, flights in and out take a steep 5.5° glideslope to reduce noise over residential areas. Most airports operate at a 3° glideslope so this is a substantial difference – almost twice as steep. In fact, aircraft must gain unique regulatory approvals before they can be used at London City.

Now London City says it wants to welcome bigger planes. To do so, it is asking the CAA to:

“approve a new flight procedure (RNP AR) which would alter the approach angle for this aircraft at each runway end. The current approach angle limits the type of aircraft that use the airport and requires those that can be certified for a steep approach.”

This will allow it to welcome larger aircraft like the A320neo, which it describes as “more fuel efficient, more environmentally friendly and quieter.”

Take that with a pinch of salt. An A320neo might be quieter on a per passenger basis, given its greater capacity, but it’s unlikely to be quieter overall. Airbus told me that:

“Both the A320neo and A220 family aircraft benefit from a 50% reduction in noise compared to older generation aircraft, thanks to new engine technology.” 

The A220 is already flown from London City by some operators such as Italy’s ITA. Swapping an A220 for an A320neo is unlikely to be quieter.

What is correct is that it “would enable London City to reach its permitted passenger capacity with fewer flight movements, stimulating economic growth while maintaining operational efficiency”. However, London City Airport is so far from its theoretical maximum annual passenger cap of nine million that it is a long way off from aircraft size being the limiting factor.

It’s also not clear what restrictions would be in place on an A320neo. Whilst I’m told that “early indications are that A320neo operators will be able to operate with a full passenger load” it’s not clear whether this includes additional cargo load or not.

Airbus would also need to certify the aircraft for the steep glidepath, which it has not done for the A220-300. Airbus told me that “London City Airport is in the early stages of application and next steps will be discussed in due course.”

London City Airport wants to welcome A320neos

What is driving this change?

The real reason why London City Airport is pushing for this change has, I suspect, little to do with welcoming “cleaner, quieter aircraft.”

Rather, I believe it is an attempt to grow passenger numbers. That’s because, unlike many other UK airports, London City Airport is struggling.

Last year, it welcomed 3.57 million passengers – just two thirds of its 2019 record year and just 170,000 more than 2023. Meanwhile, Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and others have set new passenger records.

Allowing A320neo aircraft to operate from London City Airport substantially lowers the barriers to entry and will make it easier for airlines to open routes with existing aircraft rather than investing in niche subfleets. The A320neo is one of the most popular aircraft types out there, with over 10,000 ordered by more than 130 airlines.

Take British Airways, for example. It is currently the largest operator at London City Airport with an ageing fleet of Embraer E190s with just 106 seats. At some point, BA will need to replace these aircraft but might baulk at investing in an A220 or Embraer E2 fleet given the limited opening times.

Being able to operate A320neo flights would be a game-changer and offers the sort of flexibility that British Airways would be looking for. It could get rid of its E190 subfleet and allow interoperability of aircraft across its operations at Heathow and Gatwick when London City Airport is closed.

The changes wouldn’t just benefit existing airlines. easyJet and Wizz Air in particular are major A320neo operators and might be enticed to try flights from London City. Other full-service airlines in Europe might also consider it for the first time.

There are other concerns, of course. Will the current terminal manage to cope with 180 passengers at a single gate, or in the cramped baggage hall, or indeed almost anywhere in the terminal? I am a big fan of London City Airport but it is not exactly the most spacious. It also doesn’t offer the convenience of jet bridges.

Will allowing A320neo operations be enough to attract more passengers and turn around the airport’s prospects? Who knows. It certainly won’t be a hindrance to future growth and its vaunted target of nine million passengers – a target that, right now, feels like it is decades away.

Category

General

Comments (91)

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

  • Thywillbedone says:
    28 Jan28 January 06:22

    On the subject of aircraft noise: anywhere from 40-60% of the total noise generated by an aircraft landing is aerodynamic noise (the plane simply passing through the air) …thus only so much can be achieved with quieter engines.

    • memesweeper says:
      28 Jan28 January 08:09

      I used to live almost directly under the flight path for London City in its first years operation and the early planes that flew there – like the Avro RJ85 – were drastically quieter than typical commercial airliners. Even the Embraers never bothered us. Larger aircraft approaching Heathrow, even at much higher altitude and nowhere near overhead, were noisy and bothersome. I’m again living near the flightpath and I’ll be less than delighted if noisier planes start flying past me, but it will be a real issue to those living very close by.

      As a user, like Rhys, I appreciate the small airport feel and it works well with small aircraft to match. Take away its USP and London City has very little to attract me — and I’m damn near on the doorstep.
      If the CAA approve it, can the planners stop it? It feels like a violation of the arrangements understood by local communities. Sad news if this goes ahead IMHO

  • Barbs says:
    28 Jan28 January 06:51

    This is welcomed. It would mean I fly more out of city. As someone local to the airport (15 mins walk), the smaller ember planes are the reason I don’t utilise it as often. I find them too cramped (but that’s just personal preference).

    • BSI1978 says:
      28 Jan28 January 07:40

      That’s interesting, I find them much better than econ on other planes, although admittedly I am to bag the exit seats or row 2 if possible.

      I haven’t been on one since they crammed in more seats.

      • The Original David says:
        28 Jan28 January 08:22

        The “crammed in” seats are unchanged forward of the exit rows, so actually now have more legroom than they used to because the seats are thinner.

        • Jonty says:
          28 Jan28 January 22:37

          I’m 6 foot 3 and flew from barcelona to LCY in the densified cheap seats at the back. It was fine. Not spacious, but perfectly acceptable for a short flight.

    • Matthias says:
      28 Jan28 January 08:03

      How tastes differ. The BA E190s are by far my favourite planes, because of the giant legroom (now only in rows 1-12) and the 2-2 configuration where it barely matters which seat you get.

      Plus the convienence of City makes it a fabulous proposition, if only I didn’t live 75 minutes away and there were more destinations! (Oh, and also a lounge.)

      • PeteM says:
        28 Jan28 January 11:54

        @Barbs is the only person I know with that view, I am also a big fan of the Embraers.

  • RC says:
    28 Jan28 January 06:58

    Even if the A320neo can clear Canary Wharf on a hot day at max permissible payload with an engine out, where would it park at LCY. Apron space is the big issue there – as well as limited terminal space.
    Perhaps this is due to pressure from BA (who judging by the irrops mess that is lhr-flr) also don’t seem to understand this stuff?

    • memesweeper says:
      28 Jan28 January 08:13

      It can provided it isn’t fully loaded with fuel. This limits the routes available but is still going to be attractive to some airlines.

      As you say, the ground handling will be a disaster without an accompanying pile of expensive to build and operate infrastructure enhancements.

    • Nick says:
      28 Jan28 January 10:49

      Absolutely nothing to do with BA! Remember that BA mainline has very little to do with LCY, BACF effectively runs itself as an arm’s-length operation and absolutely does not have the money to invest in A320neos. Nor is there a cat in hell’s chance that easyJet or Wizz will ever start flying from there, the costs are just too high and reliability far too middling, particularly in bad weather.

      My suspicion – and it is only that – is that they’re hoping someone will come along (maybe has already offered) and launch longer range flights on a low-density aircraft. DXB probably, maybe other Middle East, and NYC of course. Ground handling would be a nightmare for full A320s and I don’t see that happening.

      • CamFlyer says:
        28 Jan28 January 16:20

        I believe an A220 can reach the US east coast from LCY. I would expect someone can come up with a lie flat business class arrangement to make it a worthy replacement for the old BA1/2 LCY-JFK.

        • CamFlyer says:
          28 Jan28 January 16:21

          While it did not work on the A318, the superior A220 economics might make it interesting. Or perhaps not — there doesn’t seem to be much demand for a resumption of the service.

          • MPC says:
            29 Jan29 January 09:00

            The last 5 years have shown even the fattest of fat cats that is in fact *not* necessary to send a plane full of executives across the pond on a daily basis with the technology we have really had for the last decade. All of the big financials in the City are now trying to make various ethical and sustainability plays, and flying humans around doesn’t play into that. (Yes I am well aware that there are still thousands of bankers flying around on a regular basis – But generally long haul is a lot more frowned upon than it was pre-covid, at least in the financials I speak to)

    • Bernard says:
      3 Feb3 February 07:59

      LCY built larger, A320 compliant stands during COVID

  • Chris says:
    28 Jan28 January 07:00

    The real issue is that the Elizabeth Line has transformed the accessibility of Heathrow from very large parts of central London, such that LCY just isn’t as much of a no-brainer as it once was.

    There is of course a separate question as to why the Elizabeth Line wasn’t built to stop at LCY…the answer being small-minded/short-sighted bureaucrats!

    • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:
      28 Jan28 January 07:37

      Um no.

      The answer is that it isn’t feasible to build a station there due to the layout and curvature of the existing tunnels and tracks.

      It was never past of the original Crossrail scheme – just like LHR wasn’t either.

      • Chris says:
        28 Jan28 January 07:53

        …spoken like a short-sighted bureaucrat! Of course it would have been possible – LCY had advanced plans for it, but ran into walls of red tape and typical British bureaucracy / the prevailing “can’t do” attitude when it comes to trying to build any sort of infrastructure. Absolute madness.

        • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:
          28 Jan28 January 08:13

          Thanks for the insult. They always advance a discussion.

          LCY never had detailed plans for a station at the airport.saying they wanted one isn’t a plan!

          Every now and then the chief exec would pop up and offer £50m or so but never produced a business case despite being asked – numerous times – for one initially by Crossrail and then TFL.

          • Bernard says:
            3 Feb3 February 08:02

            Not sure that WS the case. The airport came up with detailed plans but were shut down by TFL and Crossrail.

        • Ken says:
          28 Jan28 January 08:19

          I’m sure they had advanced plans for it…

          No amount of taxpayer funding is ever enough for small private interests in the South East.

          It’s a sub scale airport that always will be & the rational behind using it has diminished in many ways.

          I’m sure it’s of National importance that people living there can fly to Ibiza or Bergerac without having to use other nearby airports.

    • memesweeper says:
      28 Jan28 January 08:18

      I live much closer to LCY than LHR and there’s not much in it journey time wise by public transport thanks to the Lizzy line.

      LCY has the edge with the later check-ins/faster arrivals.

    • Rob says:
      28 Jan28 January 09:21

      Having flown out of City yesterday, I actually thought that – should I end up with no BA status in a year or so – I’d actually find it preferable to Heathrow. Timewise its about the same from South Ken.

      • AET says:
        28 Jan28 January 19:11

        Without status you’d never be able to take a carry-on with you on board. I assume this isn’t as strict at LHR. I fly out of LCY at least once a month and don’t remember the last time when I didn’t hear an announcement saying they are looking for volunteers to check luggage in followed up by another announcement that staff will be walking around the waiting area to tag bags.

        • HertsCanuck says:
          29 Jan29 January 08:49

          I fly out of LCY regularly with no status on BA, always with a carry-on, always on full fights, and never have I had to part ways with my carry-on.

    • Nick says:
      28 Jan28 January 10:54

      The lack of Crossrail station is because LCY wouldn’t pay for one. Canary Wharf funded theirs (hence why it looks different from the rest), LCY could have done the same but decided to complain instead.

      The obvious answer was to rebuild the old Silvertown station, which would have been cheaper as it’s outdoors, but required a short walk to the terminal rather than a direct link so they didn’t want that either.

      • Michael Jennings says:
        28 Jan28 January 11:00

        It would have required a much larger station than previously existed, though, which would have required quite a bit of acquisition of land and rejigging other things. Anything is possible if you throw enough money at it, but this would have been neither easy nor cheap.

        • PeteM says:
          28 Jan28 January 11:58

          I struggle to see why the taxpayer should have funded a station for LCY when it’s already well served by the DLR, objectively small and they weren’t going to pay for it themselves. Bizarre to talk about “small-minded/short-sighted bureaucrats!”…

          • Lumma says:
            28 Jan28 January 12:34

            Since the Elizabeth line opened, the best way from anywhere up to Whitechapel to get to LCY is to get the Elizabeth line to Woolwich and then the DLR from Woolwich Arsenal. It may even be preferable to do it that way from Canary Wharf too if you’re close to the Elizabeth line station

          • Alex Sm says:
            28 Jan28 January 17:27

            This DLR thing is bizarre, last week I had to go to Woolwich on the Elizabeth line and then back on the DLR to the City airport because this was the quickest option. Isn’t it ridiculous, especially with this long walking transfer between the stations at Woolwich? 🤷🏻‍♂️

        • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:
          28 Jan28 January 21:57

          There would have been no need to aquire land at the Silvertown Station site. There is alredy sufficient railway land to build a station etc with the required platform length to accommodate Lizzle line trains

          A station could never have been built with direct access to the airport because, as I have already wrote, because of the layour of the track within the Connaught Tunnell which are on curves.

          Also there really isn’t the demand for an extra stop. LCY is already well connected via the DLR and already has one of the higest uses of publuc transport of any airport in the country.

      • Andrew. says:
        28 Jan28 January 13:48

        Seems pointless when it’s a barely 20 minute walk from Custom House to LCY.

        • Alex Sm says:
          28 Jan28 January 17:28

          Not always viable with luggage or in the dark… not sure if it’s clearly signposted either

      • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:
        28 Jan28 January 22:05

        The Woolwich station box was also privatly funded with Crossrail / Lizie picking up the fit out costs.

        BUT there was also a reasonally good business case for a station there to open up public transport in the Woolwich area but the cost benefit for a publically funded station wasn’t quite there but the developer funding the basic station box made it possible.

        And yes Silvertown is an (almost) ready made site for the station which in the scheme of things would be relativly cheap to build – no land acquisition is required and it’s all open so construction would be cheaper.

        But the 500m walk to the airport is just too much for some and a fleet of buses would soon clog up the residential streets.

      • Bernard says:
        3 Feb3 February 08:02

        Your comment is not accurate I’m afraid.

  • hedgecock says:
    28 Jan28 January 07:18

    Nice to see an HFP article about airport expansion that isn’t wild, one-sided cheerleading for the aviation industry. Well done, Rhys!

    • Petros says:
      28 Jan28 January 07:42

      this^

      Personally, I really can’t fathom how airlines and airports – among others – structure their official communications as if they’re talking to idiots. From BA’s “following customer feedback” to now LCY’s “more fuel-efficient, more environmentally friendly, and quieter” aircraft, I really feel like I’m being taken for a tool.

      Anyway, I don’t think LCY has the capacity to handle A320s at this moment. Just imagine what will happen if four of them arrive full within 30 minutes, or the chaos in security on departures – even with the new scanners, queues will most likely reach the DLR station! Hopefully, they’ll have their application rejected, and we’ll all continue with our lives.

    • Rob says:
      28 Jan28 January 09:19

      We’ve never wholly positive articles on airport expansion. The Heathrow third runway is clearly madness, if only because spending £50bn simply to entice carriers from Gatwick helps no-one. You can’t expand long haul flights easily due to bilateral agreements on who can fly to where. BA will never back it because it is at a clear disadvantage – any foreign airline could easily divert a couple of extra aircraft a day to London with no capex whilst BA would need to spend billions expanding its fleet, terminals etc etc if it was to take 50% of the new slots – and even that may be blocked.

      Gatwick expansion makes sense, as does Luton.

      • Michael Jennings says:
        28 Jan28 January 12:08

        LGW expansion is a no-brainer, given that the second runway already exists. They should just get on with that one.

        • RoyH says:
          1 Feb1 February 12:03

          The “second” runway (actually a taxiway) at Gatwick is only used as a runway when the main one is out of action for repair/maintenance work. The two strips of tarmac aren’t spaced widely enough to be used concurrently.
          Gatwick should be expanded. However, to do that and provide for (reasonably sensible) interconnections would require building a very fast, dedicated rail link between LHR and LGW. Of course, we can all imagine that happening….

      • Andy says:
        28 Jan28 January 12:13

        I know we tend to concentrate airport expansion around London for commercial reasons but can’t help think it’s short-sighted

        Know long haul needs consolidation at a few airports but does London really need Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton when what they are effectively doing is pulling passengers from other parts of the country

        It’s weird how poorly the North is served when it has the same population as London

        https://tomforth.co.uk/whynorthenglandispoor/3_RedCircleBlueCircle.jpg

        (accompanying article is worth a read too)

      • BBbetter says:
        28 Jan28 January 14:00

        “BA will never back it” doesnt mean it is not good for passengers as well. What we need is long term whichever option increases competition and offers more choice for consumers.

      • Bagoly says:
        29 Jan29 January 04:49

        How does Luton expand?
        It’s one of the most extremely space-constrained airports anywhere.
        Look at how the private jets are packed so tightly together.

      • RoyH says:
        1 Feb1 February 12:11

        Luton’s already a collection of bodge-jobs on a site that’s too small and doesn’t have anywhere to expand. The existing runway is on top of a hill!

    • Ken says:
      28 Jan28 January 09:24

      It’s only 30 years ago that LCY was carrying a mere 500k passengers a year.

      You can see how people disturbed by the noise get so pissed off with the endless creep of incremental expansion of flights, timings and size of aircraft.

      Arguably the airport has served its purpose , and the lizzy means it’s almost redundant.

      Perhaps it should be gently put to sleep so houses could be built on the land.

  • Ian says:
    28 Jan28 January 07:29

    Bring back BA001!

    I am sure it will never happen, but one can dream…..

    • BSI1978 says:
      28 Jan28 January 07:42

      Haven’t those planes been scrapped and/or now operating as film/TV props?!

      • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:
        28 Jan28 January 07:56

        One of the A318s was definitely scrapped. Not sure about the other one,

        BA only leased them so not their problem.

        Thee has been talk and possibly test flights for the A220 to do the route (not BA though) but as far as I’m aware nothing concrete,

  • RC says:
    28 Jan28 January 08:44

    Next up, the often rumoured but unsubstantiated money laundromat scam that some think Global Airlines is will claim it’s going to fly LCY to JFK on an A380

  • BA-flyer says:
    28 Jan28 January 08:47

    LCY say they have written to the chancellor to get support for these plans. Presumably the CAA are making a decision based on safety factors, so it feels wrong to me to be seeking political interference.
    Also, in the first half of 2023, a quarter of all flights out of LCY departed with fewer than half of their seats occupied. Which suggests high pricing is the bigger issue than available seats.

    • Throwawayname says:
      28 Jan28 January 10:27

      That’s probably a BA issue as they don’t offer one-stop options for LCY pax, presumably both because they want to avoid LHR cannibalisation and they don’t partner with any airlines on the continent other than IB and AY.

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

New to Head for Points?

Welcome!  We’re the UK’s most-read source of business travel, Avios, frequent flyer and hotel loyalty news. Let us improve how you travel. Got any questions? Ask them in our forums.

Get 25,000 Avios with the Barclaycard Avios Plus Mastercard

GET A SIGN-UP BONUS OF 18,000 VIRGIN POINTS!

Latest Forum Posts

Get 80,000 bonus points (worth 80,000 Avios) and £400 of dining credit with The Platinum Card (Offer ends 27th May)

Check reward flight availability instantly for free!

See a whole year of reward seat availability on one page at SeatSpy.com

Get up to 10,000 bonus Hilton Honors points

Booking a luxury hotel?

Our luxury hotel booking service offers you GUARANTEED extra benefits over booking direct. Works with Four Seasons, Mandarin Oriental, The Ritz Carlton, St Regis and more. We've booked £1.7 million of rooms to date. Click for details.

SME? GET THE ONLY FREE SMALL BUSINESS CREDIT CARD WHICH CAN EARN AVIOS

Get points worth 30,000 Avios with 'first year free' American Express Gold (ends 27th May)

The UK's biggest frequent flyer website uses cookies, which you can block via your browser settings. Continuing implies your consent to this policy. Our privacy policy is here.

Got it!