Archive Route Development & Rumours

[Coathanger16]

Perhaps nobody else wanted MAN-PEK, so we got HU. We're probably lucky to have got that. However, PEK is the hub for CA, so if we wanted a Beijing service with real potential, they may have been the ideal entrant.

Equally CZ to CAN, or MU to PVG (these would be the real wins in my opinion) would have been much better. Each of these three provide connections to far more countries and cities via their hubs than HU bring from BJS. And each of these is in a major alliance, for points earners.

The only reasonable connections possible on HU through Beijing are to China. There isn't a single third country destination that connects to the MAN service same day, in both directions. They fly onwards to SYD and MEL from 3+ Chinese airports, none of which are PEK! Heck, they don't even publish decent fares for MAN-Australia (cf. Paris where they're usually the cheapest to SYD & MEL).

With so many other hub options out of Manchester (Emirates, Etihad, Qatar, Cathay, Singapore, and Oman/Saudi to a lesser extent), would having CA operate the MAN - PEK pick up that many more passengers? So far in 2017, Hainan have carried about 8500 more passengers than Singapore (to/from Singapore) so they don't seem to be doing to bad.

For CAN I would certainly agree with you on CZ though - they typically have the best fares from LHR to Australia/NZ.

"one carrier one route"

Between which countries and China does this apply to? For instance Paris has both Air China and China Eastern operating to Shanghai.

 

[Chilly Dog]

With so many other hub options out of Manchester (Emirates, Etihad, Qatar, Cathay, Singapore, and Oman/Saudi to a lesser extent), would having CA operate the MAN - PEK pick up that many more passengers? So far in 2017, Hainan have carried about 8500 more passengers than Singapore (to/from Singapore) so they don't seem to be doing to bad.

For CAN I would certainly agree with you on CZ though - they typically have the best fares from LHR to Australia/NZ.

Yep - good points, but I'm not sure SQ is the best comparison point, as we share our 'plane with Houston and it's only 5 per week. I'm not bagging HU, just saying that 3 or 4 a week is actually pretty good, considering the limited connections beyond Beijing.

Would CA or CZ or MU perform better than HU? I think they would - they're well known for low fares beyond China to Asia and AU/NZ. Would this be at the detriment of CX, SQ etc? Possibly. But it could also be at the detriment of Heathrow.

Between which countries and China does this apply to? For instance Paris has both Air China and China Eastern operating to Shanghai.

Sorry I'm not the best person to answer this - certainly PAR-SHA has these two carriers. But Googling "China One Route One Carrier" will give you all the background on the situation.

 

[Dobbo]

As much as I'd like to see Air China fly PVG-MAN every day with a B789, I can't see it in the near term. They have sat on the route for so long that it feels as though they intend to kick the can down the road as long as possible. Also, from the MAN end, the focus now seems to be on India so I don't know how much they can help a new route to Shanghai, or Guangzhou.

In any case, I suspect CX may be benefiting from the visa situation at HKG and this may be a key catalyst for their move to further increase frequencies at MAN.

I suspect the new facilities at T2 will see a bit of a rush to make use of them, whether that includes further Chinese carriers remains to be seen.

 

[Chilly Dog]

As much as I'd like to see Air China fly PVG-MAN every day with a B789, I can't see it in the near term. They have sat on the route for so long that it feels as though they intend to kick the can down the road as long as possible.

But Dobbo, this is exactly my point.

Air China should be sitting on MAN-PVG! They have as poor a network from Shanghai as Hainan have from Beijing. Other than O&D (and aren’t HU showing that those opportunities are limited?) what would MAN-PVG add to CA’s network?

India’s a whole different matter! I talk with AI and Scoot and wish one of them would make up their minds!

 

[Dobbo]

But Dobbo, this is exactly my point.

Air China should be sitting on MAN-PVG! They have as poor a network from Shanghai as Hainan have from Beijing. Other than O&D (and aren’t HU showing that those opportunities are limited?) what would MAN-PVG add to CA’s network?

India’s a whole different matter! I talk with AI and Scoot and wish one of them would make up their minds!

I'm certainly not disputing that! It is frustrating that these don't quite match up!

To be honest, I'd expect MAN-PVG O&D alone to be pretty close to supporting a direct route at 4x weekly, certainly on a seasonal basis. But if they can make more money elsewhere, and potentially sell their rights to MAN in the future that's fair enough.

Can I ask what the issues are with Air India (probably obvious) and Scoot? I'd guess SpiceJet might spur them into action but I think the same applies to Vistara, albeit they are much further away from being able to launch internationally.

 

[Chilly Dog]

Is seasonal on SHA satisfactory? Don’t we think SFO should be year round, as a key business route?

GDS data on demand from MAN to Asia (excl Middle East), in order:

HKG
BKK
BOM
KUL
SIN

Surprised that KUL is above SIN....I’d say that’s a quirk. The numbers are very close.

Beijing gets 47% more demand than SHA from Manchester. Roughly 10% of the deman for HKG.

Edit: meaning HKG gets roughly 10 x more demand than PEK.

 

[Dobbo]

I'll pick up on @Chilly Dog's excellent points later, but an article from Routes has appeared on topic.

It contained updated (estimated) O&D between MAN and PEK and PVG:

• MAN-PEK: 98,269 (2014: 45,944)
• MAN-PVG: 60,866 (2014: 47,347)

This clearly demonstrates: (i) how much impact a direct option has; and (ii) how much overall growth there has been since 2014).

EDIT: quote taken from article:

"Cowan indicated he was hopeful the airport would have some "positive news" regarding flights to China within the coming months. Air China is expected to operate a route to Shanghai."

https://www.routesonline.com/news/2...outesonline&utm_content=uk-china+flight+rules

 

[Aceshigh]

RoutesOnline have now gone hardcore on new China - Manchester flights !

 

[Dobbo]

RoutesOnline have now gone hardcore on new China - Manchester flights !

What have I missed???

 

[Aceshigh]

Mr route online tweeting the article you mentioned earlier to today BUT MORE in the context of Manchester !

"Could @ManAirport be set to benefit from UK China changes".

Direct quote!

 

[David_itl]

Think the most interesting bit is how the passenger numbers have nearly panned out :

From the 2015 report on the "licensing" of Air China for Shanghai-MAN

"MIDT data from Sabre shows an estimated market of around 135,000 O&D passengers a year between Manchester and China, although the real market size will be notably higher when you include ground leakage to London for the existing non-stop flights to the Chinese cities of Beijing, Chengdu, Guangzhou and Shanghai. When you add the obvious stimulation a new direct flight can add then you could realistically see a market of around 200,000 passengers, which will grow year-on-year. Our analysis shows that Shanghai overtook Beijing as the largest O&D market for passengers between China and Manchester last year with an estimated annual demand of 50,000 and a 34.6 per cent share of the annual demand in 2014." i.e no more than 100,000 combined passengers to the "big 2" and 35,000 for the rest.
https://www.routesonline.com/news/2...reen-light-for-new-shanghai-manchester-route/

And now we have the new routesonline article that now shows the "big 2" with nearly 160,000 passengers. It doesn't take a leap of faith to see the 200,000 passengers being talked about as now being a reality. I'm not going to suggest that we're about to nearly double the Shanghai passengers with this new route but the stimulation of the new route may see it going to something like 75,000 passengers a year. I wonder what the passenger flows are for Guangzhou, Xiamen and Xi'an - the latter would almost certainly be a candidate for a seasonal "scheduled charter"

Overall though, people would say that you're 1 sandwich short of a picnic if you were to tell them on 1st December 2014 that within 3 years, there would be approaching 300,000 passengers a year to Hong Kong and China flying from MAN

 

[Dobbo]

It certainly seems the case that PVG is close to a point where a route would be viable. 60,000 passengers works out at roughly 82 passengers per day each way. If you assume a similar stimulus to PEK, that grows to 135 passengers per day each way.

In that, it leads us back to @Chilly Dog 's point. As key business routes, we should aspire to at least daily year round. The Air China B789 seats 293 passengers. Even with a Beijing like stimulus that would lead to under 50% loads, which is not viable. Connections are required, and what could AC offer at PVG (I genuinely have no idea).

Take SFO. Passenger flows comfortably over 10,000 per month was unexpected from my part. It is getting towards the point where, if only one carrier were on the route, a daily service would be viable. It will be interesting to see the loads if VS persevere next winter...

 

[David_itl]

Agreed we should be aspiring for daily but I'd be more comfortable with airlines entering at 4 weekly and build from there!

 

[Dobbo]

It worked for CX...

 

[Aceshigh]

The "certainty " of service that daily brings is a massive draw!

 

[Dobbo]

Surprised no one has mentioned this El Al story which seems to have appeared from nowhere over the weekend...

 

[User001]

LY5127 TLV 1605 MAN 1930

LY5128 MAN 2100 0355

B738 Thu/Sun from end of March.

Great to finally see them return!

 

[Dobbo]

Good to see some use of spare late slots...

 

[User001]

Indeed.

I will create an ELAL thread once the flights are confirmed.

 

[Land23R]

Good news re El Al when confirmed.