British Airways/British Airways Cityflyer

[User001]

It's part of the chain of news. not every news release is going to be the mega 'Cathay Pacific' and such, bit citiflyer is big news in that I see the name 'London Airways' so much despite everything and it wazzes me off!

The flights are also not charters, but sole BA flights. The aircraft has not been chartered by any 3rd party.

Long haul will be back at Manchester, just not in 2017.

 

[ethanegcc]

Yes, I agree that charters are the wrong word for the flights and also great to see BA doing this as I have long hoped. What routes and is the same happening for BHX?

The flights are also not charters, but sole BA flights. The aircraft has not been chartered by any 3rd party.

Long haul will be back at Manchester, just not in 2017.

Will BA take over JFK/ORD/PHL and possibly add LAX in 2018?

Any idea when the cityflyer announcement will come?

 

[Dobbo]

Catching up on the threads.

Whatever the direction of travel with this, there is clearly a reversal of the mindset/rationale that saw BA pull out of MAN in the mid-late 2000s.

The airport clearly supports a large and growing market, LhR and LGW are pretty much full, and BAs competition are taking a very large slice of a big pie at MAN.

Let's see where this ends up, but with TCX, VS and possibly Norwegian looking to expand/enter the market, we much be careful what we wish for!

 

[ethanegcc]

I agree that BA shouldn't oversaturate the market, which could drive one or more carriers out a particular route, however, if the JV is changed so that BA operate on 772s, it will be beneficial for Ba to operate PHL/ORD/JFK for better service and more reliability.

If they want to expand further, they have to change from the LON centric attitude. I very much prefer VS, who have shown commitment to the UK regions for years and I would like to see the DL/VS JV grow further at MAN, but perhaps this very thing is what is changing BA's rhetoric on MAN.

 

[Dobbo]

I am stone bonkers certain it is the VS/DL joint venture that has focused BAs mind in the opportunities at MAN.

Assuming they want to give it a go, they still face the "problem" of having a high frequency shuttle into LHR connecting into a massive global network. VS no longer have this problem.

Where BA can find an advantage is in a seamless transfer process from other airports. With the best will in the world, BE are not CX/SQ/TCX/VS etc.

The new T2 should massively help this, as will USPC. Going from a B767/752 mix to B777 will be a big jump, but I hope a reliable year round service will make a massive difference.

 

[Aceshigh]

It would be interesting to know the split of the BA shuttle flights in terms of the % going to the US via LHR. Presumably quite a few who "might" use a Manchester direct.

 

[ethanegcc]

Exactly - surely BA have instant data on the most popular unserved US destinations from MAN that pass through LHR. Some of these may have enough feed to warrant a flight. JFK/PHL/ORD, the next options for BA/AA would surely be MIA/DFW/LAX. I am sure BA/AA could make MAN-MIA work with the large AA feed to south America and tourism to Florida, possibly on a three/four weekly basis.

The TCX MIA/LAX flights seem to have been a great success with high load factors. I suspect that VS and BA are watching these routes extremely closely.

 

[Dobbo]

They clearly need to look West as the eastbound market is well served and services continue to expand.

They could seek to route eastbound passengers over CX and QR.

When compared with the eastbound airlines, westbound routes are characterised by seasonal fluctuations, expensive prices, poor product, unreliable service and old aircraft. The advantage BA might have is the ability to offer a regular service year round on reasonably new and spacious aircraft at a reliable service and with bottom end prices that can compete with TCX and Norwegian. They should also be able to set up a feed.

 

[groobs]

I suspect SG flying MAN customers to Houston will have focussed their attentions as well. Whilst I'm sure BA were satisfied with AA sending people via JFK and ORD and latterly EI via DUB, suddenly all these direct options must mean that their bookings are taking a hit.

Obviously AA don't have the ability to increase their operations, let's hope BA can.

 

[Aceshigh]

You do wonder where the "marketing brains" of BA has been these last 5 years in respect of the Gtr Manchester market and how it's grown.

I do wonder if the fact these gurus are all based in London has something to do with it ?

Initially a blasé and naive assumption that punters will keep loyal and keep using the shuttles despite a massive increase in direct flights and frequency.

This was then followed in my view by an attempt to use Dublin as a reasonable alternative. I think BA thought that by using EI as a conduit from Liverpool they could syphon off the demand from the NW that had been using Manchester. With EI pulling the plug clearly that strategy has not worked either !

To say they have taken their eye off the ball is in my view an understatement. Granted there are some codeshares but when was the last time we saw some robust marketing around the area via billboards/ social media.

With f'cast 27.5 m in 2017 it seems inconceivable that they are ONLY just waking up to the idea ( Vueling/CiFlyer) that they have a massive market on their door step that has seemingly completely passed them by.

For a national airline it is incredible really!

 

[Coathanger16]

Whilst general consensus is quite negative regarding BA pulling out of the regions, does anyone know how BA ops were doing at the time? If they were struggling to fill flights, is it any wonder they pulled out, especially given the growth easyJet and Ryanair were having at the time.

Since leaving Manchester, they've still had a limited presence through their shuttle service and through their JV with American, and more recently Vueling & Iberia.

Whilst growth at Manchester has been strong in recent years, has BA's reluctance to fly again from Manchester been due to the fact that other airlines already have a strong presence at Manchester. All the main destinations are served, and perhaps BA have felt there is not enough demand for them to add anything to what is already offered. Additionally, if BA moved into Manchester again, how would American fare? Do they have a particular interest in flying to Manchester or are they happy for BA to take over those routes?

I think a large part of BA's decision to remain London focused is due to the limited capacity available at London airports. Whilst some may say that should provide BA with a reason to look elsewhere for growth/opportunities, I think BA have been trying to maximize the efficiency of their ops from Heathrow and to a lesser extent Gatwick (particularly in light of the recession). This has meant that if BA felt that a 777 could offer better loads/returns operating from LHR/LGW than MAN, then they'd fly it from London and not Manchester. Now that a third runway at Heathrow looks more likely, perhaps that has eased the pressure on BA allowing them to reconsider flights from the regions, specifically Manchester.

Additionally, as new aircraft (B787 & A350) join the fleet replacing 777's at Heathrow, those 777's can be shifted to Gatwick allowing the older 777's at Gatwick to be used operating flights from Manchester. Likewise with new A320NEO's coming in and replacing A320CEO's.

That all may be rubbish, but just another angle to look at things.

 

[Yawner]

If any of this speculation about a return of BA materialises, then I hope it's an abject and very costly failiure.

They more than any other institution has tried and succeeded in shackling growth at MAN for their own ends.

The main reason they have opened long haul from MAN in the past is to suppress other airlines and protect their London interests e.g. Hong Kong, Islamabad, JFK...

They even closed profitable routes so as not to dilute their other base.

I also have no enthusiasm for Norwegian. If they appear they will offer nothing new and have no real commitment here once they've driven others off the routes. The best options for MAN are TCX and VS as resident leisure based transatlantic carriers, VS/DL for business travellers and the other US airlines for hub ops. SQ type ops are a bonus.I realise BA would essentially be operating as a US hub carrier because of their AA jv, but they are and will always be the anti christ in my books because of their past behaviour.

 

[EGCC_MAN]

Some are still making the mistake of judging British Airways in isolation here. Remember, British Airways is a brand-name. The company behind the brand is IAG. At Manchester we see IAG in the form of Vueling, Iberia Express and Aer Lingus as well as British Airways themselves. Then there are franchised operations offered by Sun-Air of Scandinavia and Stobart Air. IAG brand BA Cityflyer is also reported to be planning a based presence for Summer 2017. American Airlines works in close partnership with IAG on its three transatlantic routes. Add that lot together - realise that IAG is actually one company (multiple branding has marketing advantages across differing markets) - and that's really not a bad programme. At some point we could see significantly increased commitment from the Vueling brand as well.

I am no apologist for what British Airways did to MAN twenty to thirty years ago. Some of their tactics were deplorable. But the individuals who were responsible for those policies left the scene long ago, either retired, moved on or in many cases dead. It makes no sense to attach historic resentment due to them to one brand name amongst the several comprising today's IAG. Those who would happily book to fly from MAN with Vueling, Iberia Express or Aer Lingus but who would avoid 'hated' BA really haven't thought things through. They're separated by a layer of paint. Nothing more.

Let's see what happens with IAG as a whole. Several of their brands appear set to increase their presence at MAN. Their weekly roster of departures from MAN must compare favourably with Star Alliance these days. And we don't hate them do we? But keep expectations realistic. The location of British Airways-branded hubs is irrelevant viewed in isolation. Company strategy will be driven by the interests of IAG hubs. That means LHR, LGW, LCY, MAD, BCN, DUB and the rest.

 

[User001]

On that theme, let's look at what we have with IAG, airlines holding shares in IAG and its joint venture partners shall we?

Dublin: up to 6 daily
Cork: up to 3 daily
Barcelona: daily
Rome: 2 weekly
Tenerife: 2 weekly
Alicante: 3 weekly (4 next summer)
London Heathrow: up to 8 daily
London City: 1 weekly (next summer)
Palma: 2 weekly (next summer)
Ibiza: 3 weekly (next summer)
Malaga: 1 weekly (next summer)
Nice: 2 weekly (next summer)
Helsinki: 2 daily
Bremen: 11 weekly
Billund: 11 weekly
Doha: 16 weekly
Chicago: daily
New York: daily
Philidelphia: daily
Madrid: 3 weekly

Then there are a few codeshares on Flybe and the Vueling base which the destinations are not known yet. London Airways indeed!

 

[Jerry]

I think if BA do start flying from MAN then it maybe to take over AA's routes especially if they are short of aircraft and MAN does have a good holiday market so they can get on that. Any short haul sun routes can be covered by Vueling as they may be more suited to take on the likes of EZY and FR and MON and Jet2. Also if IAG really wants to turn MAN into a new IAG hub then it might be wise for them to buy Flybe to provide the feed for that and also if VS/DL want to protect there operations they might be wise to buy Flybe as well!

 

[Yawner]

Dobbo, I am aware of the corporate structure that BA is a part of.

Looking at the ops mentioned above

Vueling offers nothing we wouldn't have anyway. Their staff relations are one of the worst in the industry so no pride can be attached to having their services.

Is Sun Air's network anything to do with BA? I think they have their own strategy and the BA tie in is useful to them for various reasons, but is in no way a sign of BA's interest in MAN

Aer Lingus is maybe slightly more frequent since the acquisition, but its main purpose seems to be to dilute other carriers direct US ops.

AA would probably be little different without the jv as far as MAN is concerned.

Citing Qatar is stretching things a little

It seems they can't prevent MAN growing anymore so they're sniping at the sidelines.

If BA or (IAG generally to please the pedants) invest in decent services from MAN I may have to rethink my position. Some end of life 772s (as has been suggested) would not constitute a sizeable investment. Instead it's just the latest chapter of undermining MAN. And we all know what will happen once they succeed in chasing off the competitors.

 

[Dobbo]

Do you mean EGCC?

 

[David_itl]

How is BA going to help succeed chasing off competition? AA's current offering is below the levels of TCX and a refurbished BA 777 would help bring parity with TCX. At the moment, BA's focus appears to be getting the new aircraft to replace existing LHR long-haul aircraft and launch new routes out of LHR with the emphasis on attracting the premium payer. It may well be a few years before BA have the right-sized equipment to place out of MAN with an appropriate cabin configuration. In the meantime, if the 777s have become fully depreciated then there should be fewer expenses which may hinder the bottom line.

Off the three routes that have been mentioned, JFK would be seeing around 100 more passengers per day each way above what AA offers. I daresay that IAG may well have seen that they currently get more that that going on EI routing MAN-DUB-JFK or on BA going MAN-LHR-JFK. As for LAX, we only have the 4 or so weekly TCX services - again we must reflect on the indirect MAN-LAX performance that they will have evidence of. Getting more passengers to those destinations via LHR or DUB mean that with a growing market, the local to DUB/LHR demand will start to be turned away. ORD as we have seen has not been the brightest spark for AA with delays, cancellation and replacement aircraft in the aftermath of fairly extensive promotion of the 787 service - the regular flyer will have noted this and so alter their plans accordingly; quite why UA has not stepped into the breach on this route is a mystery granted the feed that was generated for them when the BD served that route (and were far more successful than AA).

The typical passenger who would book TCX is not someone whom I would consider looking at BA for transatlantic travel from MAN. With the presumptive commencement of pre-clearance at MAN, is there ANY competitive advantage in routing traffic over DUB - their adverts/posts on social media so make play of the pre-clearance opportunities there - if their rival airlines are taking advantage of it ex-MAN?

Yes, BA of the past did their utmost to hinder development of MAN's service but in an indirect way, the retrenchment by them has allowed far more foreign long-haul carriers to start ops here than if they were based and operating service. This also means that the routes should be well and truly established with the ability to survive any attempt by BA to muscle them out. The big beef I had with them was that BA (London) and BA (Manchester) appeared to be in competition with each other, leading to the ludicrous position that premium payers were being enticed onto the LHR routes instead of bolstering the MAN base. Would BA have been better off having the dual hub policy of LHR and MAN instead of LHR and LGW? That is something for historians to debate.

 

[Dobbo]

I think that's the key point.

VS do not have an easy way to route passengers via LHR or LGW because they do not have a shuttle. They therefore have a much greater incentive towards getting the MAN catchment area on direct flights to the US (even if those passengers then transfer at ATL, JFK, SFO). What VS will find it harder to do is develop a feet outwith BE.

BA always have the fall back option of diverting traffic through LHR, and it makes no sense for them to change this, because they would only upset their regular flyers who use the long thin routes that LHR is best placed to support. What they are far better placed to do than VS is develop their own MAN feeder network (as opposed to rely on BE) via BA City flyer, Sun Air, Vuelling and even Mainline. BA metal can focus on TATL flying (using the USPC), with routes to the far east covered by codeshare arrangements with Qatar and Cathay (each of whom will benefit by the feed and we expect to increase their own services).

I am actually pretty confident that the likes of JFK can support VS operating a daily A333 and BA operating a daily B772. I also think ORD can support a daily B772 if the market can be clawed back from DUB. Each of these routes are historically strong and there is a proven underlying demand.

What we need to be careful about is going from zero airlines operating on unproven routes like LAX and/or SFO. We currently have TCX operating a (is it still seasonal?) 2/3 weekly service. If VS and BA jump on the route with 4x weekly services it might be too much too soon, and we will be left with nothing. It would be great to have a route like this with competition, but it is better to have one than none!

 

[Aceshigh]

BA did indeed win the battle ....

But Manchester , conclusively and, indirectly has won the war !

Whilst recognising they have scuttled back in various guises that is the very point is it not ?

That said I want our national airline to be front and centre !

Some major advertising letting the public know they are very much here albeit "incognito" is all that I would ask.