The real risk for this project is that it is danger of becoming TOO successful and removing too many high value customers from the LHR-JFK services. We are already seeing a big capacity reduction on the route. A year ago all 8 flights were run with 747s, this winter it becomes almost exclusively run with 777s.

I’m not disagreeing with anything you’ve said as I think you were just highlighting the same as I was, but would suggest that the above point is perhaps not such a big concern. Accepting a substantial drop off in premium travel, this has probably been countered by the change in operations. Whilst the numbers for 2009 will be lower than 2008, the scale of the 2008 market is a good indicator that the 64 seats available each way each day are not a major concern to damaging the wider market. In 2008, out of the London airports (all airlines and JUST to JFK, i.e. not EWR) there were 746,955 passenger travelling on business. Of these 22% were travelling on fully flexible business fares, and a further 9% were travelling on non-flexible business fares (including a small amount of staff and frequent flier point usgae). A further 7% were flying by flexible first class fare. This is JUST a review of those travelling on business and excludes those travelling by premium classes for leisure reasons.

If we assume a 25% reduction in the above for 2009, then the 38% travelling on business by premium classes in 2009 will be roughly 212,882.

Yeah it was a great show. I particularly enjoyed it for the same reasons as you, ren frew. I liked the footage of the young lads heads turning as the aircraft climbed into the sky. Reminded me of when you could go past Heathrow and see families spending days out watching planes, nowadays it just seems to be photographers and spotters.

When I saw the boys in the ’50s plane spotting on top of the Queens Building…I couldn’t help of think some forum members may ahve been there!! :diablo:

I watched the surviving a crash documentary too, I couldnt help notice that they didnt really give proper facts to the cause of the crashes – such as the eithiopian that ran out of fuel, they conveniently forgot to add the part that there was the problem of some hijackers onboard requesting to be flown to Australia.. :rolleyes:

Absolutely, or the China Airlines which they used an example of everyone escaping from a water accident, despite the fact the blasted thing only rolled backwards into the sea!

Be merciful with him, chaps….. 😎

I think I was very restrained! Big pat on the back for me I think!:D

I don’t know anyone at BA except those directly involved with the launch that would agree.

Aimed primarily at the banking sector, this is the wrong market at the wrong time. It’s bad enough that they are pig-headedly carrying on with Openskies, without sending more empty aircraft across the pond.

1L.

It is a difficult call. London – New York is a market unto itself, and a beast very different to those routes being operated by openskies. Even with the current economic position, people I have spoken to in The City cannot wait for its launch.

I agree that it is a difficult time to start such services, but funnily may also be the right time. IF (and it’s a BIG ‘if’) economists are correct and we should be able to see light at the end of the recession tunnel by the year end, then this may play well into BA’s hands. There has been a cutting of transatlantic capacity and this will give them first mover advantage.

Whilst leisure markets take some time to drop in a recession because people have already committed to holidays, the business market drops off very quickly (as we’ve all seen), however, the converse is true, and coming out of a recession, premium business travel typically picks up very quickly, with lag for leisure as people need to feel some confidence before spending their own money on holidays etc. Anyway, the point of this is, that if we will start to see an end to problems by the turn of the year, then an October launch is well timed to capitalise on the relatively rapid uptake in premium travel again. I suspect filling 44 seats each direction each day will be a doddle (70% load factor) once people get used to it.

The absolute cramped maximum of 737-300s (which Jet2 has) is said to be 149. The same absolute maximum for CS300 is 145. Not a big decrease.

Very fair point. And thinking about it, I have a recollection that the C-300 may ahve been advertised with 149 seats. Well spotted….I must be having a blond day (and look at me praising chornedsnorkack…it must be a cold day in hell :dev2::p)

AS I recall, break even for the 777 was quoted at something like 250 planes.
They sold that many fairly quickly.

The A380 is a long way from that.

But as I stated in an earlier post, being an Airbus…I’m not sure it has to make money since it’s seen by many government shareholders (like German Laenders) as a jobs scheme.

I’d love to sit down with an airline or IFLC guy.
The 380 would be a great plane for long routes that a lot of people travel.
As an example, BA flies has two flights daily from Seattle to London (I believe a 747 and 767).
Would it work to replace both flights with one 380?

I’m guessing the airlines see some advantage to having two flights daily especially in NA where a major hub has a large catchment area…in other words, people on the afternoon flight have spent all day getting to the hub, so having a later flight means they don’t have to spend the night in a hotel at the hub waiting for the morning flight.

Then there’s fuel, and AC and financing costs. Probably a thousand variables.
Interesting stuff, picking a plane.

With regards to frequency, you are absolutely right about maximising connections through higher frequency, and that will always be an issue.

The other thing to bear in mind is that frequency attracts premium travellers. Tjose buying business/first class fares tend to like flexibility and will pick an airline which gives them that. If a meeting overruns at either end of the route, they want to know that they haven’t missed their only flight for the day. Some research we did in London related to air travel need showed that businesses want higher frequency to primary business points, and will make their ticket decisions based on that.

That TU-134 is a noisy beast!!