oly720man
Posts: 5745
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 7:13 am

Air Jamaica "wrong To Drop Manchester"

Fri Dec 09, 2005 8:18 pm

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/magaz...NDER__BUTCH__STEWART_S_CONTROL.asp

"In hindsight we should not have cut the Manchester route. Instead we should have added an extra flight, which would have solved the crew problem and made it more efficient. The loads were good but the yields were bad but getting better."



When will they be back, or is the damage now done?
wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
 
User avatar
nighthawk
Posts: 4781
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 2:33 am

RE: Air Jamaica "wrong To Drop Manchester"

Fri Dec 09, 2005 8:20 pm

Quoting Oly720man (Thread starter):
"In hindsight we should not have cut the Manchester route. Instead we should have added an extra flight, which would have solved the crew problem and made it more efficient. The loads were good but the yields were bad but getting better."



When will they be back, or is the damage now done?

That doesnt make sense, how does adding an extra flight solve crew problems and yields?
 
Elagabal
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 7:40 am

RE: Air Jamaica "wrong To Drop Manchester"

Fri Dec 09, 2005 8:22 pm

I think JM are snakebit. Of course, they don't do themselves many favours...

Shame really, the livery really brightened MAN up.
 
mhodgson
Posts: 4673
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 8:47 pm

RE: Air Jamaica "wrong To Drop Manchester"

Fri Dec 09, 2005 8:39 pm

Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 1):
That doesnt make sense, how does adding an extra flight solve crew problems and yields?

Probably as costs were so high having to keep crew in MAN until the next flight, which operated Wednesday and Saturday. Or costs were high transferring crew to LHR and vice versa.

Would be nice to see them back, but they got rid of an A340 didn't they?
No trees were harmed by this message. However, several million electrons were terribly inconvenienced
 
jm017
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2002 6:47 pm

RE: Air Jamaica "wrong To Drop Manchester"

Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:05 pm

As a matter of policy, I ignore anything Butch Stewart says. He did the airline some good, but he used the airline as a Sandals Shuttle. His policies caused the airline to bleed money. I am positively stunned he admitted to a route having good loads but poor yields. I didn't have the impression he cared about yields, which was a huge problem with JM.

They do have problems, though. The Montego Bay hub experience can be a nightmare in the afternoons. London flights are notoriously delay-prone. In general, southbound flights (to Jamaica) are usually uneventful and on-time. Heading Northbound is a different story. Delays delays delays. Crowded. You fel like cattle being led to the corral. (I cannot wait for the opening of the new terminal). They and the folks that operate MBJ can do better than that.

An example of the experience: The last time I travelled to Jamaica (from PHL), for example, my flight dowm was on-time. Heading north was just weird and dumb. My first flight was labelled as 059 to MBJ (where I was to connect) and ATL. At Mobay, the folks on my first flight discovered what "change of gauge" means. Everyone had to get off upon arrival (with the ATL flight departing from another gate). Then that plane was readied for the flight to....Philadelphia!!!! Now, why didn't they just call it flight 045 to PHL originating from KIN. My point is they do things that make NO sense. The other thing they do that is bothersome is their habit of combining flights. In this case, they combined Baltimore and Philadelphia. Annoying, because not only is there a stop at BWI, but everyone has to disembark to clear customs and immigrations there.

Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 1):
"In hindsight we should not have cut the Manchester route. Instead we should have added an extra flight, which would have solved the crew problem and made it more efficient. The loads were good but the yields were bad but getting better."

My experience is limited, but this statement makes no sense. I do not think the issue was crew problems. I am surprised they couldn't make this flight work. My first thought when they started using the A340 on that route was that the A310 would have been better suited. Although I understand their rationale for using the A340 on some routes, I still think the A310 was the perfect sized aircraft for many of their major routes.

Whatever he says about the government, I do think they are paying greater attention to yields versus loads.

Quoting Oly720man (Thread starter):

When will they be back, or is the damage now done?

Who knows. I wouldn't discount the possibility.
"It's okay to cheat, if you just really don't like to lose."
 
7LBAC111
Posts: 2427
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 9:17 am

RE: Air Jamaica "wrong To Drop Manchester"

Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:14 pm

Quoting Oly720man (Thread starter):
"In hindsight we should not have cut the Manchester route. Instead we should have added an extra flight, which would have solved the crew problem and made it more efficient. The loads were good but the yields were bad but getting better."

When will they be back, or is the damage now done?

Hopefully soon, but probably never Sad

Now, what are the chances of VS picking up Montego Bay from MAN?

7LBAC111
Debate is what you put on de hook when you want to catch de fish.
 
gayrugbyman
Posts: 1046
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 4:43 am

RE: Air Jamaica "wrong To Drop Manchester"

Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:22 pm

Slim, better yields to be had on Barbados and Las Vegas I would say.
 
2travel2know
Posts: 2236
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 7:05 am

RE: Air Jamaica "wrong To Drop Manchester"

Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:30 pm

Quoting 7LBAC111 (Reply 5):
Now, what are the chances of VS picking up Montego Bay from MAN?

Interesting, MBJ should more likely give VS better yields than TAB
I don't work for COPA Airlines!
 
7LBAC111
Posts: 2427
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 9:17 am

RE: Air Jamaica "wrong To Drop Manchester"

Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:19 am

Quoting GayrugbyMAN (Reply 6):
Slim, better yields to be had on Barbados and Las Vegas I would say.

Well as VS add more and more services that BD are 'supposedly' offering, then LAS and BGI are likely candidates - yes.

But in response to JM saying yields were on the increase, and VS already having a crew base here (which was the source of JM's problems), perhaps a weekly service to MBJ is possible - even seasonally?
Debate is what you put on de hook when you want to catch de fish.
 
MANmatt
Posts: 861
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 1:23 am

RE: Air Jamaica "wrong To Drop Manchester"

Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:26 am

I think personally we've seen the last of JM a MAN. With VS taking over St Lucia and doing BGI as well, i think they are more likely to do MBJ in the future.

Perhaps adding a 3rd weekly flight would have helped them, but would it have helped enough? They had to cut LHR back to just a daily operation and dispose of 1 (0r 2) 340s, surely by adding a 3rd flight to MAN wouldn't have been enough to save them?
 
rdwootty
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 4:28 am

RE: Air Jamaica "wrong To Drop Manchester"

Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:39 am

I had the privilige of travelling from MAN-MBJ in business class May 2004. The checkin staff at MAN were rude and I know this was outsourced but it still reflects on the Airline. However running a three class flight was not a good idea from MAN..I suggested to the route liason manager, who travelled back with the two of us in solitary splendour,that they regraded the seating for MAN to Y Premium economy ( using business seating but Y meals) and C Business using FIRST. Make the premium about gbp 150 per pax and the cabin would be full.
He told me that " The Boss" would not allow it and so the flight went with more or less two empty cabins. Such a waste.. Also they could have subchartered part of the flight to tour operators filling it all. BD seem to be able to do three cabins but they are Y Premium Y and C

[Edited 2005-12-09 20:56:45]
 
lazyshaun
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 5:50 am

RE: Air Jamaica "wrong To Drop Manchester"

Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:49 am

Mhodgson,
They had 3 a343's about 6 or 7 months ago, but now have one. The missing two went to AC, who I guess were the leasers.
I came. I saw. I conquered
 
Orion737
Posts: 3044
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 10:14 pm

RE: Air Jamaica "wrong To Drop Manchester"

Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:19 am

I agree with JM017, the A310 was the ideal aircraft for establishing routes like Manchester and would have been the ideal aircraft with which to increase frequencies.

The 340 has not been a good choice for JM. Operating below capacity or full but with heavily dicounted fares.
 
md90fan
Posts: 2798
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 11:15 am

RE: Air Jamaica "wrong To Drop Manchester"

Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:54 am

Quoting Orion737 (Reply 12):
I agree with JM017, the A310 was the ideal aircraft for establishing routes like Manchester and would have been the ideal aircraft with which to increase frequencies.

The 340 has not been a good choice for JM. Operating below capacity or full but with heavily dicounted fares.

I always wondered why JM used big aircraft like the 340 on those routes, BWIA too
http://www.devanwells.blogspot.com/
 
trintocan
Posts: 2728
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2000 6:02 pm

RE: Air Jamaica "wrong To Drop Manchester"

Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:03 pm

So JM's A340s' have 3 classes? I did not know this. Anyway if they have difficulty filling the large front end areas it is easy to see why the flights would lose money.

Insofar as A340s are concerned for JM and BW, despite their apparent size they are actually well-matched for Caribbean routes to the UK because of their considerable cargo capacity. In BW's case too T&T was in Category 2 at the time of their acquisiton and so there was no prospect of them getting certified for ETOPS to permit a twin trans-Atlantic service (they are Cat. 1 now though).

The classic problems of JM being used as a "Sandals Shuttle" are well-known and documented. Too often at Jamaican taxpayers' expense the airline was run to keep the resorts in Jamaica and other islands full - the trouble is that one cannot really run a national flag carrier on a purely leisure basis. Charter airlines are able to make such routes work by pre-selling blocks of seats to travel agencies and package operators (thereby generally ensuring maximum revenue from each flight even if some seats are empty on travel) and by accepting strict limitations on their operations. For example, nationals of Egypt and Tunisia are not allowed to travel home on charter flights and Greece still has laws which can lead to a passenger losing his return charter ticket if he side-trips to another country (eg from Rhodes to Turkey) for over a day. In these cases the national airlines are given some protection.

Needless to say it is difficult for a truly national airline like JM to combine two rather different service products with different needs.

TrinToCan.
Hop to it, fly for life!
 
jm017
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2002 6:47 pm

RE: Air Jamaica "wrong To Drop Manchester"

Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:12 pm

Quoting Trintocan (Reply 14):
The classic problems of JM being used as a "Sandals Shuttle" are well-known and documented. Too often at Jamaican taxpayers' expense the airline was run to keep the resorts in Jamaica and other islands full - the trouble is that one cannot really run a national flag carrier on a purely leisure basis.

I was told a while back that someone had in fact made a better offer for the airline than Butch Stewart's group 11 years ago. It probably would have been better (and less of a conflict of interest) had the government accepted that bid. Of course, I speak with the knowledge of hindsight, which is always 20/20.

Quoting Trintocan (Reply 14):
Insofar as A340s are concerned for JM and BW, despite their apparent size they are actually well-matched for Caribbean routes to the UK because of their considerable cargo capacity.

I have heard this before. Anyone from the West Indies will understand how important cargo is on these routes. Still, the use of the A340 struck me as overkill.
"It's okay to cheat, if you just really don't like to lose."
 
BWIA 772
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:33 am

RE: Air Jamaica "wrong To Drop Manchester"

Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:44 pm

Quoting JM017 (Reply 15):
I have heard this before. Anyone from the West Indies will understand how important cargo is on these routes. Still, the use of the A340 struck me as overkill.

What aircraft would you recommend then?

IMHO it is clear that Caribbean aviation is in dire need of visionary leaders who can make these Caribbean airlines viable.
Eagles Soar!
 
jm017
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2002 6:47 pm

RE: Air Jamaica "wrong To Drop Manchester"

Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:51 pm

Quoting BWIA 772 (Reply 16):
What aircraft would you recommend then?

I felt the A310 was a perfect size aircraft for JM. Other possibilities: if they were willing to consider boeing, then the 767 would have been a model to consider. But these options are just thoughts of based on passenger capacity only.

JM preferred the A340 because of cockpit commonality and cargo capacity, and so I can understand the decision. I am not saying it was BAD, just that the A310 would have been BETTER, even considering the concerns cited by management.

Quoting BWIA 772 (Reply 16):
IMHO it is clear that Caribbean aviation is in dire need of visionary leaders who can make these Caribbean airlines viable.

Boy, that's for sure.
"It's okay to cheat, if you just really don't like to lose."
 
md90fan
Posts: 2798
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 11:15 am

RE: Air Jamaica "wrong To Drop Manchester"

Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:03 pm

Maybe the 787 or A350 will open up these kind of markets
http://www.devanwells.blogspot.com/

Who is online