Gilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3102 posts, RR: 2 Posted (11 years 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4395 times:
Just read an interesting news article about how airlines wishing to operate flights to Hong Kong, Japan, China, Pakistain and South Africa are experiencing problems, delays and red tape when seeking authorisation by the UK Governement.
It also goes on to comment that these are sometimes blocked to protect BA, even though BA would appear to have intention of operating these routes from Manchester.
I think in this day and age this kind of behavour is a disgrace and if foreign airlines want to operate these routes they should be allowed to, esspecially when BA is public limited company and no longer state owned.
If the UK Government did similar favours for other UK airlines like Virgin or BMI, there would be up roar at BA!
David_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7585 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (11 years 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4342 times:
There have been a few instances when BA have put the block on expansion; SQ waited for a couple of years before being allowed in (they were told that MAN entry would see an equivalent number of LHR services being disallowed), a "dutch airline" reputedly intended to operate to Barbados but BA wanted rights from AMS in return, any transatlantic route (they complained that the market wasn't big enough for them to JFK, yet they've seen off AA and DL), Australia having to offer BA more destinations before QF could come here and the infamous oneworld alliance where slowly but surely, any airline connected with BA that was flying long-haul ex-MAN dropped the service.
However, I would imagine that BA are now seeking for a medium-to-long term plan for more of their own long-haul, especially now that they are developing a pretty extensive European/domestic schedule.
A340600 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 4107 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (11 years 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4325 times:
British Airways should be called British Southern Airways. They are theur main hubs, LHR and LGW and pretty much all long hauls go out of there. Except MAN and EDI but they are few compared with the other two,
I'm not complaining, JUST BRING THE BLOODY JFK service bk to LGW BA, i'm bored of 777s and let MAN have one
Despite the name I am a Boeing man through and through!
Gilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3102 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4285 times:
Why do you want a 777 at MAN on the JFK route when you can have a 767!
Especially when you pay more for the fare than passengers flying from London and get an aircraft that offers none of the comfort or luxuries of the BA's 777's.
If they wish to fly a 767 on the route they should atleast have the decentcy to offer similar cabins and comforts found in World Traveller Class on the London routes. This is one of the major complaints of passengers flying the MAN-JFK route.
CainanUK From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 551 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (11 years 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4220 times:
They think that us Northerners are just really simple folk who don't want all the fuss of the World traveler Class and that we are too stupid to notice that we pay more for the priveledge of flying in a fancied up charter aircraft. Actually, by offering inferior equipment out of MAN they force your hand to fly out of LHR or LGW thus taking an extra flight and paying for the privelledge. Bollocks to them I say, I fly bmi and they are fine.
FlyingColours From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2316 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (11 years 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4188 times:
I bet if BMI sent a 330 MAN-JFK that would get BA's attention - well long enough to get the gov to stop them.
It is a real shame that Manchester is going to waste so to speak, MAN has tons of free slots (If I can find the quote I'll add it later - mentioned a few months ago) which are not being taken because;
a) BMI keep whining about not being able to fly out of LHR
b) BA keeping everyone else out of MAN
c) MAN isn't LHR - Although it is the LHR of the NW
Now the thing is if BA won't let anyone else fly out of MAN then why the hell don't they do it themselves, there is a thing called demand and we are demanding more flights to more places.
They should work something out, send some airlines into MAN and then send shuttle flights to LHR and LGW because quite a lot of pax on LHR bound flights are heading to MAN, GLA and EDI anyway. I know many people who have flown to SYD, NRT and SFO that have all ended up going through London.
Lets face it, the British Government have screwed around with the airline industry from day one with forced mergers and blocking of flights etc so it will never end really.....
QF Tell BA to kiss your A$$ then fly to MAN again
Lifes a train racing towards you, now you can either run away or grab a chair & a beer and watch it come - Phil
David_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7585 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (11 years 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4156 times:
Oh, I forgot to say that any "impasse" at the moment should be regarded as a golden opportunity for MAN to expand/extend T3 and T2 (don't know what they can do at T1) as we could then have the oneworld alliance at T3, star alliance at T1 (clustered around stands 2 to 6,17,18 and 21-27) and skyteam at T2. Not much use having some slack (but not a lot of it!) in the peak periods if you are having to remote park aircraft!
MANmatt From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 969 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (11 years 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4039 times:
I agree, BA doesnt want there to be any long haul flights from MAN just so pax will use the shuttle to LHR and add on some more numbers to their pax fingures down there. I say bring bk CX, and let airlines like S.A and TG operate the services that they want to operate. I read in one of the travel trade newspapers that CX are desperate to re-instate MAN because pax their pax fed-up with connecting in LHR, and many are now going via continental europe, i.e. Frankfurt. All this stuff is just child's play, the airlines should wake up and listen to the needs of the pax, after all, its their opinions and satisfaction that matters the most.
Now i aint saying bring in silly routes that arent going to be profitable, i mean routes that say operating twice a week could make some money for the airline and satisfy demand.
Oerk From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (11 years 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3979 times:
MAN is my home airport, and I never, ever, ever fly BA. The JFK service is an insult. I am just glad that I could fly with Continental if I needed to. I ignore all BA services out of London - I would always choose to connect elsewhere in Europe, or take the AA flight to ORD and connect from there.
BA might get the message one day that this current approach is not getting my business. In fact, whenever I am requested to make travel arrangements for colleagues etc they always have just one requirement - that the flight is not with BA, because they are 'too arrogant' and the 'service is s**t'. Its incredible how disliked the airline is around here, which is quite a shame.
Shamrock_747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3967 times:
LHR based 747-400 and 777 aircraft have been the first to get the new premium cabins, which makes sense because the majority of BA's premium traffic is to/from LHR. The long haul 767-336ER aircraft will be getting a refit once the LGW 777s are done. Expect the aircraft based at MAN for the JFK route to be once of the first to be done.
Bmi330 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1453 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (11 years 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3959 times:
Yeah its all BA fault if there was no BA then MAN would be bigger than LHR. Hell it was BA that seen to it than Man Utd lost the premership and did not even come second to arsenal.
MAN long haul expansion is being blocked because no airline wants to fly those long haul routes from MAN. I mean they would definitely be there if the airlines wanted to make a profit on there routes but everyone nose airlines aren't there to make profits there there so that long haul expansion is blocked from Man its common knowledge to the public. Also from what I believe LHR or LGW or BHX or any airport near MAN or MAN supporters perceived competing airports have a Edinburgh airport route development fund for flying aircraft empty to Europe so blocking Man's development.
Aussie747 From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 1165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (11 years 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3880 times:
You guys can connect to QF5/6 at AB) (FRA / FRF / EDDF), Germany">FRA from MAN , as QF has a good codeshare connection to link the RA services, I know it's not much but at least you do not have to go via LHR.
Bestwestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7759 posts, RR: 57
Reply 12, posted (11 years 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3763 times:
Do I smell consipracy theory here. The CAA protects the interests of UK carriers over those from abroad, so if a foreign airline wants to operate to Manchester, the CAA demands that a UK carrier can do the same if they want.
Manchester is not a pot of Gold - if it was BD, BA and VS would have expanded long haul service.
KA501 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 246 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (11 years 22 hours ago) and read 3601 times:
Can't understand the starting thread? We have had services to Hong Kong and Joburg in the past so why are these services so hard to arrange again?
As for Pakistan we have as many destinations as Heathrow, Lahore,Karachi & Islamabad with considerably higher frequencies.
If Manchester could boast as current all the Airlines and destinations it has had over the years it would surley be well within the top 10 airports in Europe.
Off the top of my head long haul services operated & stopped:-
SA)">AA: JFk & SA - Texas">DFW
BA:HKG,SA - California">LAX,BKK,YYZ & ISB
GF:BHR & ABH
SA)">DL: SA - New York">JFK