Rutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 1992 posts, RR: 5 Posted (9 years 4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1858 times:
When a say One World obviously BA and BAcx springs to mind.
With BAcx there is an extensive European and regional network out of Manchester but why only BA1502 to JFK on the long haul side ?
Several US Middle East and Asian airlines seem to be successful or at least cover operating costs sufficently to continue operations from MAN.
Why is it that the two major losses on the long haul in recent years are Qantas and Cathay (One World)?
Cathay especially as the service was supposedly suspended during the strikes 18 months ago but never resumed.
However there are several freight flights the Hong Kong still operated by them and by Dragonair plus a Taiwan service with China airlines several times a week.
Manchester has a very large Chinese population and one of the top China town districts outside China itself so there MUST be a ready source of people ready for restarting that direct passenger service.
Similarly there is a healthy number of people traveling to Australia from the North West.
Qantas operated throughout the 80s and into 90s building up to a daily service to Sydney.
A substantial amount of the daily Emirates and Singapore up lift from Manchester WILL end up in Australia or Hong Kong so demand remains!
So why no services with these airlines who seemed to be successful upto the point of joining Oneworld ?
BA me thinks put undue pressure on them to protect there dominance and at least get some revenue by forcing passengers onto the shuttle down the Heathrow.
Not so great for the paying passenger even in this code share age as Qantas and Cathay passengers are then forced to navigate the terminal maze at that world class gateway (not) that is Heathrow.
Even BA passenger need to transfer from T1 to T4.
Interestingly Qantas also put there code on BA flights to CDG and Frankfurt do they KNOW that Heathrow is just not suited to transfer?
So is One world good for the consumer well ?
As an aside shouldn't Iberia and Aer Lingus and soon Swiss join other One World operators
AA, AY, and BA with its various code shares in T3 ?
Trident2e From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1733 times:
It's nothing more than BA protecting its revenues from LHR. BA has never been a supporter of regional long-haul routes and never will. Qantas certainly withdrew from MAN because of pressure from BA following their purchase of a stake in QF - BA preferring to route pax through LHR and FRA. To be fair though QF adopted a crazy practice of operating the MAN sector as an extenson of one of the LHR services and this very short flight was crewed by an entirely new crew - imagine the cost of having an extra crew in London to operate it!
Rutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 1992 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1691 times:
I remember that the final few months of QF actually utilized a BA B732 flying QF9/2 from T2 at Man to T4 Heathrow !
When QF9/2 was extended from LHR to MAN with the increase to daily operations I think it was also to cut down on expensive parking charges for all day at LHR but this no longer seems to matter as the machines now spend the long days sitting at the BA maintenance yards (parking courtesy of fellow BA no doubt)
Much the same for the Cathay machines but on the BMI ramp (think they are handling agent at LHR) rather than BA strange this one world alliance isn't it ?
You would think that ground handling would be done by alliance partner wouldn't you ?
Back at Manchester are Aer Lingus and Iberia being handled by Serviceair and that's why they are in T1 ?
When the new AA Boston flight starts will there be enough gates at the BA end of T3 for this AA54, BA1502 plus the Finnair and all those RJs/EMBs in the morning ?
By the way am a Mancunian in exile in the South but with a long interest in development back up north.
David_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7143 posts, RR: 14 Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1653 times:
When the new AA Boston flight starts will there be enough gates at the BA end of T3 for this AA54, BA1502 plus the Finnair and all those RJs/EMBs in the morning
The answer is no and hasn't been for a long time - it's very common to have the last BA inbound flights of the day being sent to the Southbay between T1 and T3, and the Western Apron. I believe T3 has just got the 2 widebodied stands.
Demoose From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1952 posts, RR: 26 Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1624 times:
Any idea when we'll see work begin the proposed extension to the T3 international pier? Aswell as T2's pier extension. Also David, do you know what happened with G-BNWH on friday night's BA JFK-MAN flight - diverted back to JFK with hydraulic problems despite being a good 2 hours into the flight.
Rutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 1992 posts, RR: 5 Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1606 times:
These 2 stands will be at the far eastern end then?
How long is The AA B752 due on the ground and is there a good chance that it will be moved to remote to allow continued stand usage or is it more likely they'll shift good ol' G-BNW- ?
If they move it to remote what chances of photography from T1 multiple carpark or I this no go these days with security?
Also as my last post are Iberia and Aer Lingus inT1 because of handling agent or simply lack of space in T3 ?
Given the fact that Eire has long been considered effectively domestic surely they could use stands on the original section of T3 ?
Trident2e From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1512 times:
I worked at MAN at the time T2 was opened. I'm pretty sure that much of the prep work for the T2 satellite pier was done at the time the main terminal was being built but the problem with T2 for many years, and to some extent still true today, is that it has always been under utilised. Manchester was always good at forecasting huge increases in demand that never actually materialised.
David_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7143 posts, RR: 14 Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1506 times:
Don't know what the new extensions are going to be - they might have revamped some of the ideas, though T2 and T3 are only operating around half planned capacity.
I'm sure it's handling issues which have stopped Iberia and Aer Lingus from using T3 - another airline that's moved out from T3 is Emirates but I've a feeling that was for alternative issues (not least of which being another change of terrminal in the pipeline should A380s be used).
I have been slightly surprised that BA haven't operated one of the LHR-JFK services via MAN whilst the 767 is resident in JFK (and it looks like it may be coming back today) - all they appear to have done is use 767s on some shuttle services and today inserted an extra shuttle service using a 747 which was going to CWL on maintenance.
Widebodiedlee From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 118 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1375 times:
The AA BOS B757 is planned to park on stand 53, 3 stands in from the end of T3. This Summer will see a re-arrangement of the end stand, stand 56 to allow 3 commuter aircraft to park. In addition the passing bay at the threshold of 24R will be adapted to allow parking of 5 more commuter aircraft. BA CityExpress will be the primary users.
For information- On the International side of T3, Stand 55 is capable of taking a B747-400 as is Stand 44, both with adjacent gates restrictions. Stand 54, and 49 can take B767s and stand 53 and 48 can take B757s. Also, we have advanced plans that will provide stands on ALL 3 Terminals for the A380.
Airport Planning, Manchester Airport
All opinions stated above are my own, not my Companys'
FlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 1965 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (9 years 4 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1391 times:
I travelled BA/QF to SYD a few years ago via FRA. There were a lot of people on the BA flight to Frankfurt who then joined the QF flight. I'd imagine that the feed from the BA flights is a way of maximising capacity. How full were the CX flights MAN-AMS/MAN-ZRH/MAN-CDG when they operated anyway?
BA as yet does not codeshare on IB's MAN-BCN route. Following EU approval for BA/IB/GT to deepen codeshare on Anglo-Spanish routes that will likely change. Maybe BAcx will take over the route from the current IB A320 - WW must be taking some chunk of the business for this flight?
As for EI not being in T3 isn't this partly to do with security? Channel island flights depart from T1 gates for BA despite the fact that check-in is in T3. I don't know all the details but signage in T1/T3 is very clear that Channel island and Eire flights depart from T1.
Finally, BA did try expanding MAN L/H flights around '96 with a five times weekly MAN-LAX service (BA276/277) operated with a 763. It also used to route LGW-MAN-ISB with a 742 for several years. Now this flight is LHR-ISB with a 772 I wonder whether this is due to PK's frequencies? I recall flying SN MAN-BRU a couple of years back from T2 and there being 4 PK 747s present routing to US/Pakistan!
An Airliner World article recently on MAN showed proposed T2 extension to be built in next few years thus making the terminal symmetrical in appearance when seen in plan view.
With AA launching BOS-MAN (albeit on a 757) and suggestions on here that MIA-MAN will follow, maybe an expansion of L/H will occur. Be nice to see QF operating MAN-SIN-SYD and CX MAN-AMS-HKG again but probably unlikely for several years.
Rutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 1992 posts, RR: 5 Reply 18, posted (9 years 4 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1346 times:
Lee thanks for your valued input regarding parking changes for T3 international stands.
So no remote parking for the AA B752 pitty !
Flycaledonian yes BA did operate the Islamabad route of course until quite recently.
Over the years I know BA have had occasion to operate a variety of long haul at differing times
Montreal / Toronto /Hong Kong/Barbados/Delhi/Bangkok/Los Angeles I can think off right now.
BOAC days even saw a multi point service with a VC10 to JFK then onto the Caribbean finishing in Georgetown.
Someone out there may remember to full route.
As for your comment about CX I still think they would like to return but are probably being hampered by BA.
QF I have to concede are unlikely to ever return whilst BA own a quarter stake
Rutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 1992 posts, RR: 5 Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1204 times:
Its interesting and certainly coincidence that today One of the One World carriers has stated its intention to return.
Its is Cathay Pacific who plan to route Hong Kong-Moscow-Manchester initially 2 times a week but not before 2005 !
Seems that demand is acknowledged and whilst not to pre-suspended frequencies once started they will no doubt build up again.
As I said those that said it would unlikely CX would return really don't realize how big this market is with the very large Chinese populations in the
North West (both Manchester and Liverpool)
Only California can be said to compare outside Asia itself !
Only problem now is even through a One World carrier Cathey may well have opened the door to the usual BA tactics.
Don't be surprised if BA now re-instate HK in the autumn of this year as a spoiler only to suspend it again when they push CX off.