David KerrNext year I am flying to Singapore from Manchester…………via Zurich with Swiss, one hour connection and avoiding a more stressful alternative at LHR changing terminals etc.
So should we tell SQ to forget about their daily non-stop service? Beggars belief that we create and agitate for foreign airlines to begin regional long-haul services only to find some passengers maintaining the status quo except changing transfer airport away from LHR.
__
Nordjet’s post would be okay but for the idea that BA converted profitable franchised airlines into loss-making subsidiaries. Nor does BA help themselves by proudly boasting that they’d base a 777 at MAN for Islamabad services offering increased capacity but pull the route within a couple of years, with the 777 still not having found its way here. If they know they can’t deliver what they promise, they should not go to the media and promote themselves. I hardly think the route went from profitable one year to unprofitable the next? AS for the JFK link, we know that they are embarrassed by it still operating but it steadfastly refuses to make a loss but they believe they’ve now done the right thing by now using the 767s in the wrong configuration: it can’t be the right configuration as for years they’ve denied the idea that regional airports are capable of sustaining three-class aircraft!
David KerrExactly where do I say 747? All I said was possible new routes + reintroduced services. I read a while ago BA said they had a list of about 10 regional long-haul routes which could be operated; given the numbers of 787 on order and option, surely the viability would be greatly enhanced.
As for HKG….can you name the airline that opened unopposed MAN-MUC-DXB-BKK-HKG with L1011s and proceeded to turn a decent route into a LHR/LGW-MAN-HKG service with 747s operating with less capacity ex-MAN on the same days as CX then coerced CX into a codeshare agreement with BA with them completely forgetting to market MAN-AMS/CDG-HKG in favour of MAN-LHR-HKG?
Why do so many BA establishment types start accentuating what’s posted and plonk aircraft and routes which those in the regions have not a cat in hell’s chance of starting? Once BA loses the LHR link, things may become interesting. When they return to the regions, they’ll be a bit park player in a game that they raised the white flag to once competition became involved with the regions having conveniently forgotten about having alliances, codeshares, etc except where LHR is concerned.
David KerrBA have a MAN and JFK link at manchester and have had it for like over 25 years. Why havnt they expanded at MAN. They could have some really good routes from MAN such as SFO LAX YVR YYZ YUL IAD DFW aswell as BOM DEL BKK NRT PEK PVG HKG SIN(With onward to SYD).
They could also codeshare with EK on DXB Flight SQ on SIN Flights and AA on ORD flights.
As mentioned SQ in a no-go (especially given the amount pressure BA exerted on the UK government to stop SQ coming here!). They did codeshare with EK but the numbers who “booked BA” would have comfortably filled an EMB145 operating once a month to DXB. They currently codeshare with AA on ORD flgihts; the BOS flights were also codeshared but MIA wasn’t (too many premium passengers may well have chosen that option instead of LHR-MAN-MIA!).
Quick summation of long-haul routes BA’s (including BOAC) pulled out of MAN:
LAX (1994), ISB (early 2000s), MCO (1990), BGI (1990), HKG (1992), YUL via ORD (around 1979), YYZ (1981), various other Caribbean (1971).
Routes with best potential for BA return in 10 to 15 years:
LAX, HKG
New routes in 10 to 15 years:
BOM, JNB via CPT, NRT
Biggest problem? Known as BA1382 through to BA1407 or BA2901 to BA2915.
Now whether one could say BA is supporting MAN (or the other regional airports) is very much open to debate, especially given that soon the likes of CDG, BRU and MAD will have more transatlantic BA services than BHX, EDI and GLA
David KerrAny A380-900 depends on what additional costs it takes to develop it – if their discussions with airlines suggest something fewer than 50 will be sold then I doubt they’d develop it. Above that and we could see part of the A380 family making money…..and I’m sure I’ve seen somewhere where CX may not consider the A380-800 but go for the A380-900 as any “improved economics” of operating the 900 are greater than that for the 800. Before anyone asks for sources, I’m going to try to track it down!
The only figure I’ve seen bandied about for development was $2.5 billion. So if that is 20% of what the A380 was originally going to cost in terms of development, it might not seem unreasonable to estimate that 20% of thwe orginal breakeven figure of 270 is what the breakeven of the A380-900 would be i.e. 54.
David KerrJust lifting this bit:
“Emirates has ordered 82 Airbus jets, in a deal worth more than $20bn (£9.6bn) for the European plane-maker. The Dubai-based airline is buying 70 of Airbus’ mid-sized A350 model, and 11 Airbus A380 twin-deck super jumbos”
I note that from the addition of 70 and 11 to make 82, the BBC has been taking lessons from that lottery “winner” who thought -5 is lower than -8
David KerrI’m looking forward to this ‘diversion season’ – should yield some interesting ‘results’!
Unless Lance particularly wants to photograph some Flybe DHC8s, bmibaby 737s and Lufthansa 146s, then the only “interest” diversion photos may be of Wizzair and Cityjet given that most long-haul aircraft seem to make it to their destination airport.
Note also the fog descended at MAN around 5.30pm but lifted in time for some of the above airlines and types to come in within the last hour or so!
David KerrNot more Womble Jets please i hate them things.
Given that the loads are somewhere between the mid 60s per cent up to over 80 per cent using them, and given the exceptional chances afforded to Northern Englanders to avoid LHR when flying to Asia (as noted by Shamrock321), adding a further frequency to flow into the HEL hub (and not the hell hub known as LHR) should hopefully mean an even quicker “Kangaroo route” to Australia using AY to HKG or BKK and onward via CX (for HKG) and QF (for BKK); it’s almost just us quick to avoid LHR using the oneworld alliance as it is if you were to use LHR.
David KerrWW have no flights to CDG or AMS ex-MAN. LS have a daily CDG, but the AMS route is stopping in January. I don’t envisage any problems for U2 to operate to CDG or AMS ex-MAN should they want to, but I’m sure some passengers who utilise their LPL services to those airports may find themselves booking on the MAN ones….which would be the worst-case scenario for them as they could potentially have 4 loss-making services instead of 2 successful ones out of LPL.
David KerrThe EC-numbers registration were temporary marks prior to being placed on the EC register; addtionally, they’ll be some that were flown as a “normal” EC- registration which went to EC-numbers before becoming a normal EC- registration again which I think is something to do with change of ownership in the aircraft.
David KerrSo LTN, STN and LGW don’t have the same catchment area? BHX and EMA don’t have the same catchement area? GLA and EDI don’t have the same catchment area?
I would hardly call their expansion of LPL as being very significant given the amount of time they’ve been there, especially considering what Ryanair has done in less than half the time.
If we want to talk about small initial operations, FR only had an Emb110 back in 1985 routing between Waterford and Gatwick. easyJet had to wetlease a GT 737 to operate their first services.
And whether any of the “doubters” want to dismiss, virtually all parts of the easy Empire when brought into the northwest have debuted at Manchester. The airline is the only went to LPL because MAN wanted to focus in on the BA grand scheme of things at the time, and LPL was crying out for business. Now there are lower charges plus having just got sniffering around with slot applications they buy an airlines that has got some slots and aircraft based, it seems a ripe opportunity for them to start up. They might not even operating the same routes out of LPL as they do out of MAN; the reason they might not come is if it becomes embarrassing if they duplicated their existing LPL routes and saw LPL’s passenger numbers plummet. As for the deal with LPL…may I just remind you that deals can be broken…specifically BA and GT and their 10 year franchise agreement ending 2 years early!
David KerrThey haven’t got a clue what they’re going to do with the MAN ops! They’ve now been handed the opportunity to operate out of MAN (which is what they originally wanted way back in 1996 when MAN turned their nose at them when they preferred to be shafted by BA a decade later!) with a few routes. It strikes me that this is a strange way of taking over a business when you “forget” about a part of the concern you are taking over.
David Kerrit was easy to operate direct.
Do you mean direct as in non-stop LPL-JFK or direct as in LPL-NOC-JFK? You can fly directly from LPL round the world….but try finding the non-stop routes!
David KerrToo much competition at MAN? To Toronto perhaps but surely they would have known about AC operating daily 767s for just 3 months a year, plus less frequent Zoom services. Their operations to South Africa saw no competition but just confusion on their part as to whether they were able to operate as a scheduled carrier.
If we’re being brutally honest, this has all the hallmarks from 15 years ago: Excalibur -> succesful short-haul airline turned into a laughing stock with their long-haul services.
David KerrThe step from B777 to A380 would be too large.
Don’t forget that they are initially replacing 20 744s and 14 767s with 12 A380s and 24 787s. There will still be another 37 744s that would need to be replaced; the A380s are to be delivered 2012-2014 I believe.
I imagine that if we take out the displaced fleet*, we end up with in 2014:
12 A380s
37 744s
50+ 777s
24 787s
Therefore, there are a potential 90 aircraft order due in the next 18 months – logically, you may say that the 787 should be a shoo-in but I’m not so sure given that we would need to know exactly Boeing intends offering as an 787-10. Although the A350-9 and A350-10 still have to design freeze, Airbus has been giving specifications to airlines which they will have to ensure are, in the worst-case scenario, met.
Perhaps we may end up seeing both 787s and A350s being ordered (seems to be getting to be quite a trend at the moment); 787s at the “lower” end of the passenger scale and A350s at the “bigger” end of it.
Could we contemplate long-term:
19 A380s
40 A350s (20 A350-10s, 20 A350-9s)
70 787s (40 788-8s, 30 787-9s)
Which implies futhers orders totalling 7 A380, 40 A350, 46 787; note I’m not expecting that do be done in one spending spree!
* assuming that for every new aircraft delivered, 1 “old” aircraft is retired/sold (apart from 2 787s which are replacing anything!)
David Kerrefiste2, your best bet will be any morning – though the mainland Chinese 747 freighters tend to be early evening/nighttime. Currently, you shoud see: American = 1 x 767, 1 x757, Delta = 2 x 767, British Midland = 2 X A330, British Airways = 1 x 767, Singapore Airlines = 1 x 777 (not daily yet though), Etihad = 1 x A330 (until winter when they split operations to 4 morning 3 evenings), Qatar Airways = 1 x A330 (they have split operations per Etihad’s plans), Emirates = 1 x 777. Freighter = Cathay Pacific = 2 x 747 most days. Charter fleets vary, but generally 2 First Choice 767, 3 or 4 Thomsonfly 767, 1 Thomas Cook A330.
1L, perhaps if it’s the shape of a Concorde, it might well be Concorde?
Sign In
