Bmi330 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1449 posts, RR: 1 Posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1351 times:
Like the topic header said what are these 2 aircraft doing? Is the 3rd one still sitting in Manchester in storage or they using it? If I remember correctly the 4th should be build bye now and is it in storage somewhere or dose it not exist yet as there is no recognition of it on bmi's web site. What are the long and short term plans for these 2 aircraft?
Hopefully BD are just bluffing in the hope that the government will be 'scared' into letting BD have LHR-USA rights (afterall BD must be doing Manchester's local economy good).
I've heard that Blair et al are often telling BD that they'll end B2 soon, but of course then don't- BD only started l/h when they did because the government said B2 would soon be gone...
747firstclass From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1163 times:
I understand that one is only being leased, on a short term basis, to Emirates.
Also, after a period of time, it can be bought by Emirates. I guess this arrangement is so that BD can take back the aircraft on short notice to fly from LHR or sell it if they BD does not get to fly LHR-USA pretty soon.
David_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7256 posts, RR: 14 Reply 10, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1110 times:
The government proposals for airport expansion said that MAN may have to get an alliance on board to fulfill their hope of being a hub. I wonder why bmi concentrate their efforts on making us the Star hub - it would make a change from herding everyone down to LHR!
http://fly.to/manchester-movements ; http://fly.to/northwest-spotters
(One of them hasn't been updated for a little while!)
Englandair From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2000, 2228 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1067 times:
Actually, If the EK lease is only short term then this sounds like the plan that Blue Shamu told us about.
He said the 4th A330 would be leased to LH (that must have been changed to EK) for a short period, until Bermuda 2 was lifted and bmi could operate LHR-USA.
BD decided to do this instead of open a new route because:
1) They were told by the UK government that they'd soon have transatlantic rights from LHR
2) If they used the a/c to open up a new US route from MAN or non-US route from LHR, it would look bad if BD ended the route to use the a/c LHR-USA when B2 is dropped
Eg777er From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 1834 posts, RR: 15 Reply 12, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1072 times:
For all those people who claim that BA should be operating trans-atlantic from MAN....
How is it, that the self-styled anti-BA, model of high efficiency, brand-new efficient aircraft operating, cheap fare offering, high service providing British Midland cannot make money out of the regions?
Is it a reflection that there's niether the traffic nor the yield to operate from MAN/GLA/BHX/NCL?????
David_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7256 posts, RR: 14 Reply 13, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 987 times:
Eg77er, we have a whole host of airlines from outside Britain that can and do operate profitable long-haul routes to the regions. Most go to their hubs. And BA's main hub is LHR.....when they open their eyes to the rest of the country (principally MAN then BHX) and decide to get a decent hubbing operation in process, you will then see profitable regional operations. It will also help if they introduced new long-haul services from the regions and then don't do their utmost to make sure that they lose money after running these services for a short-to-medium length of time i.e. in the case of BHX, reducing capacity (both passenger and cargo) on their JFK route from 767 to 757 after around 18 months. In the case of MAN, one would like to suggest they prefer the premium payer to actually route MAN-LHR-wherever rather than MAN-wherever (let's just think of some financial inducements that may be used). It also doesn't help that we have the pseudo-permatech 767 G-BNWH on the MAN-JFK service; if one can't guarantee that the route will run on a given day, one may be inclined not to book on the service and use a service from another airport if one's company travel arrangements are organised for BA travel.
Long-haul routes do not make money from day one (it took Singapore Airlines around a decade to do so on our MAN service - in fact, you've probably don't know the circumstances which saw them eventually arrive here)....did you read the bmi press release? Basically, they expect around 3 years of losses and are counting this year as year 1 of the 3 year plan i.e. they've disregarded last year due to circumstances beyond their control. However, they to have to attract criticism as to the lack of planning in provision of a better hub to service their transatlantic operation i.e. they only operate domestically, with codeshares in place with LH & SK for the German and CPH routes. I'd love to know how many passengers are transferring onto these services.
If you read the link posted by englandair, you would have seen this post:
"As a crew member on the long-haul out of Man I have to say that I can't believe that were not making a profit on the routes yet, especially the ORD. The economy cabins are nearly always full, and the C class getting very busy. On one of my most recent flights to ORD we only had 3 spare seats on the whole A/C, with 17 out of the 24 C Class pax (or should I say guests) full are paying! we also had 20tons of cargo, which can (so I believe), sometimes pay for the flight. The only cabin that's not doing so well is "The New Economy", as this seems to be used as an overspil for the frequently overbooked economy cabin."
That looks like a Shamu-type posting! The MAN-ORD service comfortably more than doubled in passenger numbers in March and April for the 1st time (some 115% up; I think capacity rose by around 120% to 125%)