Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
“The aircraft smoothly performed all eight take-offs and landings during a two-day period, as planned,” said Rob Dewar, Vice President, C Series Aircraft Program, Bombardier Commercial Aircraft. “The aircraft is meeting all performance expectations and clearly demonstrates that it is the best performing and most efficient aircraft in the 100- to 150-seat class.”
sandyb123 wrote:the article doesn't say, but did the test flight LCY-JFK carry any kind of meaningful load? The (obvious) thought here is that if the C-Series can hop the pond with a business class only configuration, then this seems to be a major win over the current 1-stop A318 ops at BA.
Sandyb123
sandyb123 wrote:the article doesn't say, but did the test flight LCY-JFK carry any kind of meaningful load? The (obvious) thought here is that if the C-Series can hop the pond with a business class only configuration, then this seems to be a major win over the current 1-stop A318 ops at BA.
Sandyb123
ikolkyo wrote:sandyb123 wrote:the article doesn't say, but did the test flight LCY-JFK carry any kind of meaningful load? The (obvious) thought here is that if the C-Series can hop the pond with a business class only configuration, then this seems to be a major win over the current 1-stop A318 ops at BA.
Sandyb123
Flew with a payload equivalent to 40 business class seats, 8 more than the BA A318.
sandyb123 wrote:the article doesn't say, but did the test flight LCY-JFK carry any kind of meaningful load? The (obvious) thought here is that if the C-Series can hop the pond with a business class only configuration, then this seems to be a major win over the current 1-stop A318 ops at BA.
Sandyb123
sandyb123 wrote:the article doesn't say, but did the test flight LCY-JFK carry any kind of meaningful load? The (obvious) thought here is that if the C-Series can hop the pond with a business class only configuration, then this seems to be a major win over the current 1-stop A318 ops at BA.
Sandyb123
intotheair wrote:sandyb123 wrote:the article doesn't say, but did the test flight LCY-JFK carry any kind of meaningful load? The (obvious) thought here is that if the C-Series can hop the pond with a business class only configuration, then this seems to be a major win over the current 1-stop A318 ops at BA.
Sandyb123
Part of the marketed appeal of the one-stop is that US CBP preclearance at SNN is faster than at JFK. I was under the impression that the A318 in the all-J configuration could handle a nonstop westbound if need be.
What would make the CSeries quite different is if it could do LCY-JFK in a mixed cabin configuration. The link says "representative payload," which isn't all that specific.
intotheair wrote:I was under the impression that the A318 in the all-J configuration could handle a nonstop westbound if need be.
intotheair wrote:Part of the marketed appeal of the one-stop is that US CBP preclearance at SNN is faster than at JFK. I was under the impression that the A318 in the all-J configuration could handle a nonstop westbound if need be.
33lspotter wrote:intotheair wrote:I was under the impression that the A318 in the all-J configuration could handle a nonstop westbound if need be.
My understanding was that it can in the summer, and might be able to in the winter, but – in addition to the CBP benefits – it's probably better to have the stopover rather than have a number of headwind-related diversions in the winter, particularly given that it's business clientele.
ikolkyo wrote:Flew with a payload equivalent to 40 business class seats, 8 more than the BA A318.
Polot wrote:Isn't BA down to only 1x LCY-JFK a day/ 6x weekly, with one A318 always basically sitting around doing nothing?
Just something to think about and temper your expectations.
TWA772LR wrote:Polot wrote:Isn't BA down to only 1x LCY-JFK a day/ 6x weekly, with one A318 always basically sitting around doing nothing?
Just something to think about and temper your expectations.
If that's true, it makes sense because the A318s should be up for their first heavy checks.
dbo861 wrote:I don't understand why stopping in SNN for pre-clearence is better than a nonstop. Does stopping in SNN, deplaning, processing customs, and then re-boarding save any time over just having a non-stop flight and processing customs in JFK? Customs in JFK isn't fun, but I'd rather do that than have an extra stop.
A320FlyGuy wrote:As a Canadian, I am glad to see that Bombardier is able to really impress a lot of people with the CSeries. That being said, I really hope that the company is able to step up to a level of support that allows them to compete with the big boys. Airbus, Boeing, and Embraer all have product support that blows Bombardier out of the water. And from what I have been told from friends who work in airline maintenance, Bombardier leaves a lot to be desired. They finally have a product that has the chance to bring them into the big leagues and I believe that the CSeries will live or die not based on its performance as an aircraft, but by the level of support airlines receive from the company. After all, buying an untested aircraft is one leap of faith, but airlines don't want to be left with a white elephant.
ACDC8 wrote:dbo861 wrote:I don't understand why stopping in SNN for pre-clearence is better than a nonstop. Does stopping in SNN, deplaning, processing customs, and then re-boarding save any time over just having a non-stop flight and processing customs in JFK? Customs in JFK isn't fun, but I'd rather do that than have an extra stop.
Neither do I - if you have to make a tech stop, I get it - but if you don't - counting the descent, approach, taxi, deplane, re-board, taxi, take off, climb - I can't see how that saves any time what so ever.
dbo861 wrote:I don't understand why stopping in SNN for pre-clearence is better than a nonstop. Does stopping in SNN, deplaning, processing customs, and then re-boarding save any time over just having a non-stop flight and processing customs in JFK? Customs in JFK isn't fun, but I'd rather do that than have an extra stop.
AA737-823 wrote:On top of all that, Immigration/CBP at Shannon now goes home before one of the BA flights arrives, which I understand forces the PAX to immigrate at JFK.
Which erases that "perk".
I don't think the 318 can do LCY-JFK nonstop given LCY's toy runway. Hence the tech stop in SNN continues, in spite of customs being closed.
TWA772LR wrote:BBDs global supply and support system should be pretty robust given the amount of CRJ'S and Q's plowing the skyways, they know what they're doing. I love the CSeries and everything about it, but I do fear it is overengineered.
ACDC8 wrote:dbo861 wrote:I don't understand why stopping in SNN for pre-clearence is better than a nonstop. Does stopping in SNN, deplaning, processing customs, and then re-boarding save any time over just having a non-stop flight and processing customs in JFK? Customs in JFK isn't fun, but I'd rather do that than have an extra stop.
Neither do I - if you have to make a tech stop, I get it - but if you don't - counting the descent, approach, taxi, deplane, re-board, taxi, take off, climb - I can't see how that saves any time what so ever.
sandyb123 wrote:the article doesn't say, but did the test flight LCY-JFK carry any kind of meaningful load? The (obvious) thought here is that if the C-Series can hop the pond with a business class only configuration, then this seems to be a major win over the current 1-stop A318 ops at BA.
Sandyb123
queb wrote:Impossible, the A318 take a 33'000 lb hit on the MTOW from LCY. The max range is about 2200 nm.
mjoelnir wrote:ACDC8 wrote:dbo861 wrote:I don't understand why stopping in SNN for pre-clearence is better than a nonstop. Does stopping in SNN, deplaning, processing customs, and then re-boarding save any time over just having a non-stop flight and processing customs in JFK? Customs in JFK isn't fun, but I'd rather do that than have an extra stop.
Neither do I - if you have to make a tech stop, I get it - but if you don't - counting the descent, approach, taxi, deplane, re-board, taxi, take off, climb - I can't see how that saves any time what so ever.
The passengers on that flight are hardly all USA citizen. For a normal European traveller on the visa waiver program processing in JFK can easily take two hours.
KTPAFlyer wrote:If BA does nonstop, it would make the most sense to preclear in LCY and eliminate the fuel stop in SNN, and switch JFK to LGA. That way, you don't have to deal with customs in NY either way, and you are close to both Manhattan and Canary Wharf.
Andy33 wrote:The CS100 was bought by Swiss to (amongst other things) replace the elderly aircraft they were using on LCY-ZRH. It's been certified for LCY for some time, hence no excitement locally. This latest test was to see if it is possible to fly transatlantic westbound starting from LCY and without a tech stop.
Good to see that it is.
TWA772LR wrote:Polot wrote:Isn't BA down to only 1x LCY-JFK a day/ 6x weekly, with one A318 always basically sitting around doing nothing?
Just something to think about and temper your expectations.
If that's true, it makes sense because the A318s should be up for their first heavy checks.
Andy33 wrote:Let's have a reality check at the London end.
Thirdly, the selling point of LCY is its closeness to London's financial district. It is a really slow process to get right across central London and out to LHR from there. But in 2019 the new heavy rail route under London, Crossrail (aka the Elizabeth Line) will open
Fourthly is the uncertainty produced by Brexit..
Andy33 wrote:Let's have a reality check at the London end.
The CS100 was bought by Swiss to (amongst other things) replace the elderly aircraft they were using on LCY-ZRH. It's been certified for LCY for some time, hence no excitement locally. This latest test was to see if it is possible to fly transatlantic westbound starting from LCY and without a tech stop.
Good to see that it is.
However, don't expect a BA order on the back of this, for several reasons:
Firstly, Willie Walsh, CEO of IAG, BA's parent company, has said there is no C-series order in prospect from IAG or its subsidiaries.
Secondly, the LCY-JFK route, as others have said, has been cut from twice each weekday to just 6 flights a week. It just isn't as busy as it was. The earlier closure of the CBP preclearance point at Shannon won't have helped.
Thirdly, the selling point of LCY is its closeness to London's financial district. It is a really slow process to get right across central London and out to LHR from there. But in 2019 the new heavy rail route under London, Crossrail (aka the Elizabeth Line) will open and link this area directly to Heathrow on fast services. Then the frequency from LHR may win out and kill the LCY service altogether - BA and AA's coordinated timetable provides roughly hourly service for much of the day.
Fourthly is the uncertainty produced by Brexit. Many banks and other financial institutions have said they may reduce their London operations and relocate to mainland Europe. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. But these provide most of the passengers out of LCY. Nobody knows what air service agreements will be in place after Brexit either - they may be unchanged, they may be more or less restrictive. Not a good time to order new planes for what is a niche service with just 192 seats a week.
Fifthly, by reducing the frequency, and working the two A318s month-on, month-off, BA has deferred any decision as to their future - the number of cycles and hours per plane is halved.
In 2019 BA will see whether enough traffic is there to justify continuing with the A318s, replacing them with something else (presumably CS100), or closing the route, but that information can't be available now.
raylee67 wrote:Would it be more attractive to business people if the route is made LCY-LGA? Granted, LGA's parameter rule and domestic status would prevent this, but what if the flight makes a stopover at YHZ? Then it can use pre-clearance at YHZ for westbound and the service stays "domestic" and within the parameter rule, right? It would add an hour or so of flight time but it definitely saves more than that by bypassing JFK's busy immigration and customs and getting London bound passengers into the closest airport to Manhattan.
raylee67 wrote:Would it be more attractive to business people if the route is made LCY-LGA? Granted, LGA's parameter rule and domestic status would prevent this, but what if the flight makes a stopover at YHZ? Then it can use pre-clearance at YHZ for westbound and the service stays "domestic" and within the parameter rule, right? It would add an hour or so of flight time but it definitely saves more than that by bypassing JFK's busy immigration and customs and getting London bound passengers into the closest airport to Manhattan.
oldannyboy wrote:My two cents: no CS100 order from IAG (and no surprise there), no replacement of the two A31stubs, the LCY-JFK will die a slow death, and maybe the CS will turn out to be not as amazingly capable as being marketed on long hauls and might actually need a west-bound stopover in the winter months... but who I am ...
Andy33 wrote:It is a runway stuck out into the middle of a dock. At the moment the single runway doesn't even have a parallel taxiway. That and another 7 aircraft hard stands are provided by the upcoming expansion plan. At the moment only 4 stands are capable of holding A318s or CS100s. The remainder are E190-sized at best. There are no jet bridges.
The terminal is at capacity in peak periods now with just domestic and near-European flights and BA1. There's just enough land for a small extension which is already approved. After that, no more growth, all other land in the vicinity is occupied, often by extremely valuable office developments. So no room for preclearance facilities, lounges, extra check-in facilities needed for all these extra flights, the expansion is simply to cope properly with what flies now, and allow more flights to be upgauged.
There's a severe curfew, no flights from lunchtime Saturday to lunchtime Sunday, no night flights at any time. The airport expansion received its approval after considerable political opposition when the airport agreed to no changes to the curfews and no changes to the cap of 120,000 noise-factored aircraft movements per annum, It's also prone to fog and diversions aren't unusual.
Polot wrote:raylee67 wrote:Would it be more attractive to business people if the route is made LCY-LGA? Granted, LGA's parameter rule and domestic status would prevent this, but what if the flight makes a stopover at YHZ? Then it can use pre-clearance at YHZ for westbound and the service stays "domestic" and within the parameter rule, right? It would add an hour or so of flight time but it definitely saves more than that by bypassing JFK's busy immigration and customs and getting London bound passengers into the closest airport to Manhattan.
But then the plane has to make that exact same stop eastbound (because of perimeter rule) which ruins any time savings you get for using LGA instead of JFK.
That is also ignoring the fact that:
A) BA would likely have to carry LGA-YHZ local passengers (I'm not sure using YHZ or whatever as a technical stop would legally make the flight "in perimeter"... that is kind of violating the spirit of the perimeter restriction)
B) BA would have to open a brand new station at LGA just for that one flight, unless they are willing to shift the entire ground experience to AA.
ScottB wrote:Not that I think a U.S. CBP pre-clearance facility is likely, but it really wouldn't be difficult to incorporate one as part of the planned terminal expansion. The bigger problem IMO is that the volumes would be so low that CBP would be unwilling to staff it without some sort of financial incentive.
The curfews are immaterial in that the desirable times of travel for the business travelers who would be likely to use a transatlantic service to/from LCY fall within the allowable hours anyway. There's virtually no demand for business travel between noon Saturday & noon Sunday.
raylee67 wrote:. As of handling at LCY, it may be able to rely on Star partner such as LH, which would be a JV partner for this route naturally as part of the trans-Atlantic JV.
