British Airways/British Airways Cityflyer

[Coathanger16]

Having just flown back from the continent, I'd be pretty miffed to turn up to the airport to find my flight has been cancelled, but a domestic flight to Manchester hadn't - just my opinion. In the UK I live South of Birmingham so would never have the need for a domestic flight into Heathrow. I appreciate for those further North that's not necessarily the case.

 

[EGCC_MAN]

No sane traveller likes to see their connecting flight cancelled. If a carrier gains a reputation for doing this at the proverbial drop of a hat then customers will bear that in mind when making future bookings. I know of many people - myself included - who avoid booking BA from Manchester (via LHR) like the plague for this very reason. This avoidance of BA is driven not by hatred / resentment of the brand but by its reputation for unreliability. Customers look to secure their best possible chance of a hassle-free journey subject to budget. This is perfectly logical market behaviour.

It is well known in the NW that if there is the slightest whiff of a problem at frequently-disrupted LHR the MAN Shuttle flights will be first in line for the chop. This isn't the case with competing carriers routing over hubs such as DXB, ATL, or AMS. If the MAN flight gets cancelled there things must have got really bad. For as long as BA is unwilling to provide a reliable service to the regions, customers will vote with their wallets in favour of airlines which will. That is the commercial choice which BA makes when treating regional connecting traffic as dispensable. The they can take the train excuse sounds great in theory but falls apart under the most basic of scrutiny. It simply doesn't work in practice (see earlier posting on this). If you were a user of the route you would soon realise this. Missing your connection by a lesser margin than other travellers is no consolation!

Improvements to WCML rail are not the only reason why MAN-LHR patronage has fallen by in excess of 50% in just over a decade. If BA wants to win back the trust of NW travellers (and I don't see evidence of this yet) then they must put in the effort and provide reliability. When the tough calls need to be made the pain must be shared around the short-haul network such that at least some MAN services do operate. Long-haul connecting customers should be prioritised. If BA chooses not to address this issue they will remain an increasingly irrelevant sideshow in the NW England market.

 

[Aceshigh]

Absolutely agree. All I'm saying is share the pain!

 

[Coathanger16]

As I said, whilst I don't live close to Heathrow, I live close enough that flying is out of the question - we always drive. For my travels, whenever Heathrow is involved, it is always the departure airport. I appreciate if you're flying from Manchester that isn't necessarily the case.

This isn't the case with competing carriers routing over hubs such as DXB, ATL, or AMS.

Due to the fact that those hubs have sufficient capacity to still accommodate most if not all flights even if there are significant disruptions (especially with DXB and ATL, long haul flights will be prioritized). As Heathrow is "full", if there is any kind of delay, to still handle all flights, aircraft would be taking off well after the 23:00 curfew. Even under "normal" conditions with just a few aircraft taking off late after 23:00, W.London residents get very angry and claim that their right to sleep is being taken away. Thus cancellations follow.

Whilst I don't necessarily agree that all flights should be treated equally (short haul at least), if Manchester were to have say 4 of its 7 flights to Heathrow cancelled, I do agree that the other 3 should be spread equally across the day, and not be grouped together in the evening for example.

What will be interesting to see is that once (it almost certainly is going ahead) HS2 is built (a long way off I know), with 1 change at Old Oak Common and a 15 minute Crossrail ride, you could be at Heathrow 90 minutes after leaving Manchester Airport. Whether or not that means the Heathrow to Manchester flights will be ditched entirely I don't know, but at least if your flight is cancelled, you'd actually have a pretty good chance of still making your onward Heathrow flight (albeit after purchasing an expensive train ticket). Who knows, by then Manchester Airport might have grown by such an extent that the Heathrow shuttle isn't needed anymore anyway.

 

[Dobbo]

I think the impact HS2/Crossrail has on MAN-LHR is a very interesting question.

The timeframe is so far out that a huge number of variables come into play. For example, the scenario is completely different with or without a Heathrow runway 3.

I did see a reference to a document with a hypothetical MAN route network by 2050. Annoyingly I have been unable to find the thing. If or when I do, I will be sure to post it on here. All things being equal, by 2035, MAN should really be able to support daily flights to pretty much all hubs that are within a single flight sector that it does not already have at least a daily flight to (e.g. LAX, SFO, DFW, ADD, TYO, ICN, BKK, HKG, SIN, DEL, GIG).

 

[Aceshigh]

Gosh HS2 now that is introducing a new can of worms and yes if you can get to Manchester from Heathrow in less than 2 hours all well and good, but on a negative, it would of course be remiss not to suggest that in the other direction you could catch a flight from what will ultimately always be a fragmented service from Manchester versus the more consistent Heathrow offering.

Why catch the "odd flght" on say 4 days a week to LA, when you could catch the new fast express train to Heathrow and have a choice of 4+ per day !!!!

I think same applies to Birminghams ambitions. On the one hand HS2 is seen as a positive insofar as you are less than an hour from London but likewise with Manchester the long haul option becomes redundant as the Heathrow vortex sucks passengers in from the North with access to traditionally cheaper fares at 5 to 10 times the frequency.

 

[Coathanger16]

Gosh HS2 now that is a new can of worms and yes if you can get to Manchester from Heathrow in less than 2 hours all well and good, but it would of course be remiss not to suggest that in the other direction why day try to catch the single flght a day on 4 days a week to LA, when you can catch the train to Heathrow and have a choice of 4 per day not per week but per day !!!!

I think same applies to Birminghams ambitions. On the one hand hs2 is seen as a positive insofar as you are less than an hour from London but likewise with Manchester the long haul becomes redundant as the Heathrow vortex sucks passengers in from the North with access to cheaper fates at higher frequency.

Precisely. I think the airport stations will be used predominately as "out of town" or "parkway" stations rather than people accessing either Manchester or Birmingham airports.

Birmingham Airport Management see HS2 as being a "game changer" for the airport (I think in 10 years time they see themselves as being London Birmingham Airport) - they seem to have missed the fact that with HS2, you can travel from Birmingham City Centre to Manchester Airport in 30 mins, and Heathrow in just over an hour.

 

[Coathanger16]

Interesting few threads on other sites regarding BA returning to Manchester:

https://www.businesstraveller.com/forums/topic/stir-that-pot-ba-may-set-up-man-base-in-2017/
http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1350637

General view seems to be that people don't want BA at Manchester. One pointed out Manchester doesn't need BA, and BA doesn't need Manchester.

Regardless of what BA plans are, how do people feel about any return of BA to Manchester and other regional airports?

 

[IanFarquharson]

Precisely. I think the airport stations will be used predominately as "out of town" or "parkway" stations rather than people accessing either Manchester or Birmingham airports.

Birmingham Airport Management see HS2 as being a "game changer" for the airport (I think in 10 years time they see themselves as being London Birmingham Airport) - they seem to have missed the fact that with HS2, you can travel from Birmingham City Centre to Manchester Airport in 30 mins, and Heathrow in just over an hour.

BHX will reveal its masterplan in 2017 and it is likely to show the airport site moving next to the HS2 station, so BHX will truly be less than an hour from Central London I think BHX are right to be 'bigging' this up especially with the lack of capacity in the South East.

 

[David_itl]

Primarily, it would signify that the yield is there. Remember the big fuss that was made when they withdrew JFK saying it hadn't been profitable for a number of years (I have my own theory on why that was). However, for it to be openly debated with the drawback considered only being too large an aircraft indicates confidence in MAN. The leverage they could have gained had a fully developed base around 2003 to 2006 proceeded is gone but a return would/should be an eye opener. Maybe it would stop the mantra going around the aviation boards about low-yield MAN instantly.

The sideline about too big available capacity needs to be looked at in conjunction with what's on offer at LHR: lots of excess economy capacity from the shuttle-like JFK run which can attract passengers who are only the look out for a cheap deal. Broadening it to a non-NW England sphere, 777s at MAN/BHX should allow for a modicum of lower pricing which may be a determining factor for the regional passenger who believes they are "flying the flag" by opting for BA

 

[User001]

Many thought the A330 of TCX was too big for markets like JFK, BOS and MIA. It seems people like to make assumptions about MAN, and sometimes those assumptions are proven wrong.

 

[Dobbo]

Agreed (I may have said this in my earlier post). I don't think the B772 is too large for JFK and ORD used to be a circa 250k passengers per year route. The demand is there.

 

[ethanegcc]

One thing that does worry me is that there is consistently no mention of PHL, when the route does well and remains at a daily (or 6 weekly) 332 with decent loads year round. I would hope, if they take over, they keep this route, even if at a four weekly rotation, possibly with LAX or somewhere else - who knows? But I can see it now, BA will make a return to Manchester, eliminating an airline and a route in the process and not bothering to initiate anymore expansion than they absolutely have to i.e. AA JV flights and a few leisure routes. On the other hand, they could restore ORD to it's former glory and if they added destinations going east and possibly LAX/MIA, it would be superb.

 

[David_itl]

Think PHL will survive but it's more a case of it being reduced to a 767/787 route rather than A330s given the pharmaceutical links between the two areas, even though Astra Zeneca has moved sticks - there's still a number of companies left in Alderley Edge that can still co-operate with their American counterparts. Obviously should BA be using 777s to JFK/ORD then there is less of a pressing need to have a large aircraft on PHL.

The thing to look out for is what Dobbo alluded to in that there is competition eastbound with DL/VS being a robust combination, TCX going seemingly from strength to strength and now the new kid on the block Norweigan about to take root. BA/IAG need to counter that - offering the one-stop over DUB/LHR may not cut it and it may be better for a a more well-known local brand to look after the routes feeding into the AA network in the same way Virgin is being "used" in the same way for ATL and JFK.

 

[Coathanger16]

When Virgin and Delta formed their JV, neither airline disappeared from Manchester. If British Airways were to make a return to Manchester, would it be unrealistic if BA operated the main routes such as JFK, whilst AA served the secondary routes such as Philadelphia?

Looking back to little over a year ago, TCX were only just starting their US routes (besides Orlando, etc), Virgin hadn't announced their LH expansion plans, and Norwegian was still an unknown. The attention to Manchester from these 3 airlines has surely had an impact on BA/IAG's thinking.

 

[Aceshigh]

But is Heathrow not a business airport and BA a business airline ?

 

[Dobbo]

Well, the meaning of "business" airline or airport is an interesting question. Heathrow's passenger numbers will include roughly 30-35% business traffic. The corresponding numbers at LGW and MAN are around 19% and 15% respectively.

BA are clearly changing their business model in Y in order to deal with Norwegian and other Loco long haul carriers. This means they are well placed to operate from MAN and compete with TCX, VS should they choose to do so.

If you assume AA retain PHL (seems reasonable) you could see the following:

• JFK - this should work daily on the B772.
• ORD - this should work on the B772 daily for most of the year, but a seasonal reduction in frequency may be necessary.
• MCO - this should work daily on the B772 - how would they cope with VS and TCX?
• LAX - this should work on a regular (4/5 weekly) seasonal basis, but how would it stack up in the summer? If this could be used as an alternative kangaroo route this may be a success for onward traffic.

Other places like DFW, BOS, YYZ or YVR might be an attractive option but I expect BA to adopt a cautious attitude and get the issues of feed and the shuttle resolved first.

 

[Aceshigh]

A staggering 64% or 48m pax who use LHR are holiday makers! I was flabbergasted when I read this.

 

[Coathanger16]

Is that 64% are holiday makers or 64% aren't business travelers? LHR has a sizable amount of VFR passengers as well.

 

[Dobbo]

I assume it is non-business travel.