Manchester: British Airways/British Airways Cityflyer Discussions

[ethanegcc]

I am not sure it would work although I would love to see LCY-MAN, although many doubt it's viability.

 

[Dobbo]

If Manchester gets pre clearance would BA consider operating the flight via Manchester instead of SNN ?

I think if MAN gets USPBC, an awful lot of possibilities come that much closer to being reality.

 

[Aceshigh]

Pretty sure it could mop up a dozen first class fares BUT would it have the "the bus" have legs from Manchester ?

 

[David_itl]

Noticed BA has now decided to revamp some 777s. Over 320 seats on board so cant see them using them here as a based fleet if the 787s are starting thin routes at LHR. As to the A318, how many passengers woulf be getting on here if its full ex LCY?

 

[Aceshigh]

Yes indeed "if" it's full it's a superfluous argument. I was simply assuming maybe an 85% load factor and no pax pick up in SNN.

Rtg via Manchester would increase the options although as I said I am not sure it has the legs anyway. That 250m will make a difference.

 

[ethanegcc]

I am not sure it would work although I would love to see LCY-MAN, although many doubt it's viability.

 

[Jerry]

I am not sure it would work although I would love to see LCY-MAN, although many doubt it's viability.

Considering EDI and GLA each have a LHR and LCY route and the routes work then i can't see why Flybe couldn't make MAN-LCY work at 3 to 4 daily. Surprised they haven't done it.

 

[Coathanger16]

Considering EDI and GLA each have a LHR and LCY route and the routes work then i can't see why Flybe couldn't make MAN-LCY work at 3 to 4 daily. Surprised they haven't done it.

Perhaps because the people flying to Heathrow are mostly connecting onto other flights at LHR.

Those that travel to LCY from GLA/EDI are mostly doing so to visit London as its quicker than the train. For those people living around Manchester, travelling to London is probably quicker by train hence no flights to LCY.

 

[Jerry]

Perhaps because the people flying to Heathrow are mostly connecting onto other flights at LHR.

Those that travel to LCY from GLA/EDI are mostly doing so to visit London as its quicker than the train. For those people living around Manchester, travelling to London is probably quicker by train hence no flights to LCY.

Manchester is probably far enough away for LCY to work. EXT works and they see promise in CWL to trial and we are a lot closer and a smaller catchment area.

 

[ethanegcc]

Also, an issue with MAN is that it is quite far from the city centre. I think it is prime territory for BE but Virgin Trains are just quicker.

 

[7griffinjack]

Manchester is probably far enough away for LCY to work. EXT works and they see promise in CWL to trial and we are a lot closer and a smaller catchment area.

Exeter has a less developed rail service compared to Manchester. Manchester/Stockport to London is a high priority route so has seen lots of investment. High speed Pendolino trains taking just over 2 hours with a frequency of every 20 mins in each direction. Even flights on MAN-LCY (with LCY being used primarily for trips to London itself, LHR is used for connections) can't compete with the train. They work for Edinburgh and Glasgow because they take significantly longer by train (4 hours+). Flights to London from MAN only work for connections now we have the improved rail service and it would be very unlikely for an air service to be able to sustain itself based on MAN - London journeys alone however nice it would be to have it.

 

[Aceshigh]

Less we get sidetracked which appears to have happened ! I was talking about the merit of rtg the US service through Manchester rather than Shannon if Manchester gets Pre clearance.

..... NOT an Airbus service back and forth between Manchester and London City.

Thought i would mention it for the avoidance of doubt !

A Man LCY service perhaps needs to be on a different thread ?

 

[rutamkrd]

Edinburgh- London City is a sustained HSBC and RBS banker shuttle service.

 

[Coathanger16]

Less we get sidetracked which appears to have happened ! I was talking about the merit of rtg the US service through Manchester rather than Shannon if Manchester gets Pre clearance.

..... NOT an Airbus service back and forth between Manchester and London City.

Thought i would mention it for the avoidance of doubt !

A Man LCY service perhaps needs to be on a different thread ?

I think the conversation shifted slightly as to whether flybe could operate the route.

Considering EDI and GLA each have a LHR and LCY route and the routes work then i can't see why Flybe couldn't make MAN-LCY work at 3 to 4 daily. Surprised they haven't done it.

As to routing the LCY-SNN-JFK via MAN once USPBC has arrived:

1). What are the load factors like? - if they're already pretty high then is there much point in re-routing to MAN just to pick up what could be 1 or 2 passengers?

2). Currently, the stop in Shannon is to re-fuel and for passengers to pre-clear US Border Control - that only happens on the outbound flight. If the flight was switched to MAN, then either aircraft would have to stop off in Manchester on the way back to drop those passengers off (probably to the chagrin of London bound passengers) or the aircraft would fly directly to LCY meaning the Manchester passengers would have to find other means of transport back up to MAN.

 

[Jerry]

As to routing the LCY-SNN-JFK via MAN once USPBC has arrived

I don't know the loadfactors but it is an all Business Class flight configured at 32 seats. So i can't see it being worthwhile for BA to stop at MAN just to pick up a few passengers especially as I can't see an A318 having the range to do MAN-JFK so it will need to stop again at SNN to refuel and the preclearance for the passengers is a bonus.

 

[Aceshigh]

Based on 32 seats it's clearly not worth it.
I assumed it was more like 80 in which case if fares are significant 15 or 20 paxs would be a major slug of cash. as for return you just come back direct on AA would you not ? As I said I was only talking time sensitive passengers with money to burn.

And clearly stopping AGAIN IN SNN was not on my radar hence why I asked if it had the legs !

 

[David_itl]

It should be able to do MAN-JFK non-stop.. have seen a quoted range of 3600 miles with 132 passengers; this would be 100 fewer passengers going 3300 miles. The SNN stop is due to the LCY length not being sufficient to enable non-stop ops.

 

[Dobbo]

Just adding my 2 cents to the more recent postings on this.

LCY is a non starter for a number of reasons - I don't see any compelling reason to make the change.

The densification might indicate that BA is prepared to compete with the likes of Norwegian, TCX. It is one thing defending their patch at LGW as opposed to competing at MAN, but it may indicate a wider change of strategy at BA - perhaps that also includes MAN.

 

[Aceshigh]

Oh my goodness. I never though I would make a positive posting about BA long haul.

BA riding back on the white stallion ?

Ironic that BA who screwed Manchester over and AA who effectively launched long-haul with of course SIA will now swap service.

Still mustn't harp back

BA should be a winner. I would think a significant % of traffic routes down on the shuttle, contract / business.

Coincides with pre clearance as well ?

 

[Dobbo]

This is good to see if it happens, but it is a fairly neutral move as my understanding is the AA/BA JV is a "metal neutral" one. If rumours are true, it will be good for JFK and ORD to be on wide bodies and (presumably) year round.

Here are my 2 cents:

1. I would be surprised if BA base B789s at MAN. They are premium heavy unless reconfigured and will be being paid off financially.
2. BA will believe they are taking a major financial risk, and an older aircraft mitigates that risk. I don't think the B763 should make an appearance, but perhaps some of the reconfigured B772s will.
3. I wouldn't bet on BA remaining in T3 for too much longer.
4. There is still the shuttle problem to overcome, and lack of feed if they want to expand further, but it is good to see tangible change.