BA at MAN

PSG55 · Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:59 am

Over the years, BA have obviously scaled back their operations at Manchester in favour of creating a hub at LHR and, to a lesser extent, LGW. However, with Manchester growing as a city and becoming evermore important for business, does anyone foresee a time when BA may return to offering more services from the city? They had a profitable daily service to JFK not so long ago but ditched it for LGW instead. With Virgin and many international carriers offering more and more services to the city, are BA missing a trick?

Armodeen · Wed Dec 21, 2016 11:06 am

Rumour is it that BA are watching the expansion of Virgin in particular carefully at MAN. I would imagine that any move into the market would be primarily to spoil it for other carriers, force them to pull out and then retreat to heathrow again (ala AA at STN).

Speaking as a MAN resident, I don't think we need or want BA back on longhaul, tbh.

LHRFlyer · Wed Dec 21, 2016 11:12 am

BA has increased coverage at MAN indirectly through codeshares with AA, EI, QR, VY etc.

BA has been able to return to a lot of markets it has withdrawn from due to its financial restructuring (Seoul, Kuala Lumpur, Reykjavik etc) and perhaps BA could serve BOS, JFK with LGW/MF crews operating W patterns.

That said, there are still huge growth opportunities for BA at LHR and LGW and I see them being focused on that in the medium term.

col · Wed Dec 21, 2016 11:31 am

BA does not need MAN and MAN definitely does not need BA. Ship sailed long ago, a few alliance partners is OK/enough. MAN needs to focus on Terminal Upgrades.

David_itl · Wed Dec 21, 2016 11:58 am

BA will be aware of the issues that have affected AA tbis year with unrelabiliy featuiring heavily. One would hope that the increased revamped 777 LGW fleet will not see all of the deployed there but allow for some limted expansion though it does seem too big, especially for winter flying

skipness1E · Wed Dec 21, 2016 12:37 pm

It's not that BA created a hub at LHR and LGW after drawing down MAN, they ALWAYS had a hub at LHR, it was the only place that made any real money (allegedly). Point to point from UK regions with BA was decimated when EZY, FR et al came along as BA supported a base at BHX and MAN with feed from other BA stations like BFS, ABZ, GLA, EDI and fed onwards into Europe. Then the locos come along and fly direct, kill that feed and do so with lower costs leaving BA's business model in the regions, always borderline loss making, a huge money pit.

So it depends what you think BA want to do. Compete to sun destinations as per LGW? Unlikely as there's not enough Avios redemption to support this outside London. That leaves long haul, and there's a million words and lot of hurt pride and burned bridges on that front. BA screwed MAN over at the command of London for a number of reasons, the main one being that LHR (arguably) saw a better ROI on any long haul frame deployed, BA ended up with a single MAN-JFK standalone operation with almost no feed, operated by the hangar queen of the B763 fleet (accidentally of course - perhaps).

But a lot has changed, BA and AA are now bedded into the JV as are DL/VS. There may be an opportunity for a swap to BA on MAN-ORD/JFK with AA *BUT* I don't see BA allocating a new B787-8 for this and the B772 is, I suspect too large. Tactically it seems ill advised to step back into this market but strategically it may have to happen. BA may be reluctant to allow a US competitor in DL/VS to share dominance at a UK airport with their UK partner and the loco competition in DY.
From an IAG perspective, funneling MAN based traffic over DUB and LHR still makes sense.

oldannyboy · Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:07 pm

.....Air London?? No way.... They're too stuck up their own RB211exhaust to even take a disdainful, distant look at the regions..
#[email protected]

:-)

skipness1E · Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:19 pm

You know BA operate from MAN/GLA/EDI/ABZ/INV/NCL/LBA right? Pretty much operating from UK regions. What you mean is "I am annoyed BA don't fly long haul out of my local airport" #behonest

inaforeignsky · Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:20 pm

BA Cityflyer are going to run a limited range of destinations over the summer weekends from MAN in 2018. Additionally we are hearing lots of rumours internally at BA that there are plans to take over the JFK and ORD flights at MAN from AA using a Gatwick 777 on a W pattern. It's all conjuncture at the moment, but this rumour is constantly coming up on Yammer on the BA intranet.

User001 · Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:30 pm

The Cityflyer base will run in 2017, starting May 24th until end of Sept.

Routes will be Palma, Ibiza, Nice, Malaga, Alicante and London City (LCY clearly a positioner with seats being sold).

Incidentally, Vueling, also and IAG airline, have applied to open a base at MAN next summer, with 2 A320 and up to 61 flights per week.

oldannyboy · Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:49 pm

skipness1E wrote:
You know BA operate from MAN/GLA/EDI/ABZ/INV/NCL/LBA right? Pretty much operating from UK regions. What you mean is "I am annoyed BA don't fly long haul out of my local airport" #behonest

Ah Ah!! Yes! :-)

Sorry, I was only half-jokingly and wittingly stating my point of view, but no, I'm no Mancunian actually..and I don't even live remotely in the vicinity.. ;-)

But, yes, I would love to see BA opening up some long-hauls out of MAN..
As I say, nahhh...not going to happen unfortunately... they're just too busy trying to fulfill their own self-prophecy of becoming Air (West) London..! ;-)

LHRFlyer · Wed Dec 21, 2016 3:02 pm

If you look at an IAG level, IAG coverage of UK regional airports has improved considerably over the past few years:

- BA has added LBA and INV
- BA codeshares with AA ex-MAN
- BA codeshares with QR ex-MAN, BHX, EDI
- BA codeshares with EI ex-LPL, BRS, BHX etc as well as other UK airports already served by BA
- BA codeshares with VY ex-BHX, MAN etc
- Flybe has also adopted the Avios frequent flyer currency so BAEC members can earn Avios on Flybe

Armodeen · Wed Dec 21, 2016 3:35 pm

inaforeignsky wrote:
Additionally we are hearing lots of rumours internally at BA that there are plans to take over the JFK and ORD flights at MAN from AA using a Gatwick 777 on a W pattern.

If they were serious they would use a 787, the 772 (particularly the refitted super awesometm 10 abreast 772s from gatters) will likely be too large. I appreciate that would require some A/C swaps on JFK btw. As far as I'm aware ORD isn't served from LGW anyway at the moment.

AIR MALTA · Wed Dec 21, 2016 4:17 pm

User001 wrote:
The Cityflyer base will run in 2017, starting May 24th until end of Sept.

Routes will be Palma, Ibiza, Nice, Malaga, Alicante and London City (LCY clearly a positioner with seats being sold).

Incidentally, Vueling, also and IAG airline, have applied to open a base at MAN next summer, with 2 A320 and up to 61 flights per week.

WW has talked about CityFlyer flights from the regions in 2017. Do you think these will be week end only or will we have more frequencies?
When are they inteding to launch the timetable for the flights?

shuttle9juliet · Wed Dec 21, 2016 5:17 pm

skipness1E wrote:
It's not that BA created a hub at LHR and LGW after drawing down MAN, they ALWAYS had a hub at LHR, it was the only place that made any real money (allegedly). Point to point from UK regions with BA was decimated when EZY, FR et al came along as BA supported a base at BHX and MAN with feed from other BA stations like BFS, ABZ, GLA, EDI and fed onwards into Europe. Then the locos come along and fly direct, kill that feed and do so with lower costs leaving BA's business model in the regions, always borderline loss making, a huge money pit.

So it depends what you think BA want to do. Compete to sun destinations as per LGW? Unlikely as there's not enough Avios redemption to support this outside London. That leaves long haul, and there's a million words and lot of hurt pride and burned bridges on that front. BA screwed MAN over at the command of London for a number of reasons, the main one being that LHR (arguably) saw a better ROI on any long haul frame deployed, BA ended up with a single MAN-JFK standalone operation with almost no feed, operated by the hangar queen of the B763 fleet (accidentally of course - perhaps).

But a lot has changed, BA and AA are now bedded into the JV as are DL/VS. There may be an opportunity for a swap to BA on MAN-ORD/JFK with AA *BUT* I don't see BA allocating a new B787-8 for this and the B772 is, I suspect too large. Tactically it seems ill advised to step back into this market but strategically it may have to happen. BA may be reluctant to allow a US competitor in DL/VS to share dominance at a UK airport with their UK partner and the loco competition in DY.
From an IAG perspective, funneling MAN based traffic over DUB and LHR still makes sense.

Regarding hangar queens WH was very well behaved but the all time hangar queen 767 belonged to WS.....

shuttle9juliet · Wed Dec 21, 2016 5:25 pm

shuttle9juliet wrote:
skipness1E wrote:
It's not that BA created a hub at LHR and LGW after drawing down MAN, they ALWAYS had a hub at LHR, it was the only place that made any real money (allegedly). Point to point from UK regions with BA was decimated when EZY, FR et al came along as BA supported a base at BHX and MAN with feed from other BA stations like BFS, ABZ, GLA, EDI and fed onwards into Europe. Then the locos come along and fly direct, kill that feed and do so with lower costs leaving BA's business model in the regions, always borderline loss making, a huge money pit.

So it depends what you think BA want to do. Compete to sun destinations as per LGW? Unlikely as there's not enough Avios redemption to support this outside London. That leaves long haul, and there's a million words and lot of hurt pride and burned bridges on that front. BA screwed MAN over at the command of London for a number of reasons, the main one being that LHR (arguably) saw a better ROI on any long haul frame deployed, BA ended up with a single MAN-JFK standalone operation with almost no feed, operated by the hangar queen of the B763 fleet (accidentally of course - perhaps).

But a lot has changed, BA and AA are now bedded into the JV as are DL/VS. There may be an opportunity for a swap to BA on MAN-ORD/JFK with AA *BUT* I don't see BA allocating a new B787-8 for this and the B772 is, I suspect too large. Tactically it seems ill advised to step back into this market but strategically it may have to happen. BA may be reluctant to allow a US competitor in DL/VS to share dominance at a UK airport with their UK partner and the loco competition in DY.
From an IAG perspective, funneling MAN based traffic over DUB and LHR still makes sense.

Regarding hangar queens WH was very well behaved but the all time hangar queen 767 belonged to WS.....

Incidentally, Jumbo BNLH was true to its reg, Never Leaves Hangar !!!!

User001 · Wed Dec 21, 2016 5:25 pm

AIR MALTA wrote:
User001 wrote:
The Cityflyer base will run in 2017, starting May 24th until end of Sept.

Routes will be Palma, Ibiza, Nice, Malaga, Alicante and London City (LCY clearly a positioner with seats being sold).

Incidentally, Vueling, also and IAG airline, have applied to open a base at MAN next summer, with 2 A320 and up to 61 flights per week.

WW has talked about CityFlyer flights from the regions in 2017. Do you think these will be week end only or will we have more frequencies?
When are they inteding to launch the timetable for the flights?

There will be 2 bases initially, at Birmingham and Manchester. Both bases will run Thu-Sun and be crewed by LCY crew.

I'm not 100% on the BHX flights, but Ibiza will be 3 weekly, Palma/Nice twice weekly and the other 3 routes 1 weekly.

It intends to be 24th May until about 20th Sept, with the launch expected around mid/end January.

The Vueling base is rumoured to be launched about the same time but no confirmation yet.

jonnywishbone · Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:03 pm

Why on earth would we want them back? Much as I never thought this would ever happen...

AA have a better Biz hard and soft product (on the 767 in summer!)
CX a country mile ahead
QR a different league on the Dreamliner
Finnair via HEL on the A350 a zillion times better

Oh and they are cheaper and accrue OW tier points and Avios.

Why would I want to travel with an un-inspired, demotivated MF crew on a 15 year old seat with AVOD that's intermittent to say the least...

And i'm a BA fan by the way!!!!

FlyCaledonian · Wed Dec 21, 2016 7:56 pm

The issue for BA was that it had a reasonable operation out of BHX and MAN. But the rise of the LCCs saw it struggle to find a model that worked and ultimately the whole operation was ditched. They had the flight to JFK for a long time, and Islamabad used to be served via MAN for a number of years as well. The difficulty was that over flights supporting O&D trying to develop MAN as a hub would have seen transfer passengers being robbed from LHR/LGW. Heck, that was part of the reason the dual London hubs didn't work. Add in a strong competitor in the shape of KL at AMS also pulling transfer traffic and the issue continued.

I know BA and MAN is an emotive subject for many in that there is a lingering belief that they squandered the ability to build a true hub and wanted to sabotage anyone else trying to do so too. Yet too many hubs close together just wouldn't work. With IAG now owning EI (and thus having a hub at DUB) the chances of BA trying to build a hub at MAN are zero. However, if they think they can leverage some O&D flights on a LGW lite model then I think that is where they will look. CityFlyer operating some leisure flight could be one way of testing the water. W flights using the LGW 777s another. I suspect BA still has a decent Avios base in the North of England. As others have noted they will also have seen how VS has built a good longhaul O&D leisure market out of MAN, and may think they can get a slice of the action.

goosebayguy · Wed Dec 21, 2016 8:00 pm

I used to fly with BA to JFK. No way would I fly with BA from LHR not only is it too expensive to reach but LHR is far more expensve to fly from. Delta and AA are certainly making hay flying from MAN with no competition. Emirates/Qatar and Etihad do the same flying east. BA could do more but seems happy to let others steal its market.

DobboDobbo · Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:28 pm

I was going to post my thoughts before the site crash - so here goes!

BA withdrew from MAN because they were not making money on the routes (or at
Least not as much as they could have with the MAN aircraft deployed elsewhere). At that time, the UK was in the midst of one of the deepest rescissions in its history. They decided (quite rightly) to retreat to their fortress of LHR.

Since the time of the withdrawal, a lot has changed.

1 - BA are now part of IAG, and primarily funnel MAN originating passengers through LHR (BA) and DUB (EI).

2 - The global economy has picked up, and there is now a strong political will in the UK to rebalance the economy with a strong North (presumably focused on Manchester). MAN is well placed to serve this catchment which also includes Leeds,
Liverpool, Sheffield, Newcastle, and parts of Birmingham and the East Midlands. Projects like HS2, HS3 and the TP tunnel will make MAN increasingly accessible.

3 - VS have made great strides at MAN and are no longer offering leisure only routes. It is reasonable to assume that in 2018 they will offer the following routes from MAN: ATL, JFK, SFO, BOS, MCO, BGI, LAS, LAX (2018) and MIA (2018). That is a lot of market lost to BA. Furthermore, they are using BE to drive connecting traffic from the regions away from BA. VS are clearly planning and implementing a significant operation at MAN.

4 - TCX also have a significant route network from MAN, and continue to expand. They are traditionally seen as a low cost airline but their Y product is at least the equal of BAs brave new world in the B772.

5 - Norwegian are looking to enter the fray and compete with VS and TCX on North American routes from MAN. BA seem to be taking steps to combat Norwegian at LGW and they may want to do so at MAN (particularly if that competition leads to oversupply and a retrenchment from VS and TCX).

6 - MAN is due to get USPC. I assume we are familiar with what this is, but as BA can only reasonably hope to compete on westbound routes, it is significant (particularly in light of point 7 below).

7 - Vueling are part of IAG and can be used to set up a feed at MAN. It can capture much of the sun and P2P beach market whilst driving more pan european traffic through IAG, this time at MAN.

8 - MAN is investing a significant amount of money in new capacity and facilities. It is one of the few large UK airports with the potential for double digit growth over the next few years.

So what may be in it for BA (and IAG?) Certainly the chance to undermine competition, but also to drive more
Passengers from Europe on IAG metal to North America. The possible route network must broadly reflect that of VS and TCX. Clearly JFK and ORD are in the frame as a takeover from AA, I also think DFW and LAX could be in the frame in order to steal some traffic on the Kangaroo route.

The B788 would be great for these routes, but the B772ER would probably be the available airframe. This might be okay for JFK (particularly in the summer) but for the rest it looks like overkill. ORD used to be a route with 250k pax per year so it may be able to support a daily B772. If LAX or DFW can capture some of the kangaroo market it too might be feasible.

The big problem I have is what to do with the shuttle? MAN flights won't work if a significant proportion of its northern customer base is shuttled down to LHR. Equally, it would be crazy to ditch or significantly cut the shuttle numbers to LHR. Could some eastbound flyers be routed via QR with some BA flights to specific OW hubs (e.g. HKG, TYO, KUL)? Might this reduce the need for a significant number of shuttles? I would say, probably not.

All conjecture at this stage, but there are a number of good reasons why we might see a major BA presence at MAN sooner rather than later.

TheLion · Fri Dec 23, 2016 4:12 pm

Excellent thread this.

If the initial routes work out well, maybe BA will position their upcoming (Autumn 2017-Summer 2018 delivery) 4 B788s to MAN, with A321LRs for thinner routes. Some A320s or E195s for key business and bucket and spade markets in and around Europe could complement the operation, and together with BMI routes would help to provide some feed to ensure profitability. That sort of fleet is a sensible size for the market served, at least initially, and should be viable given the large target market and Exec Club members it'd serve.

It has also been my personal "fantasy" network plan for BA at MAN for a long time. I even drew up schedules! #AvGeek

Will add some more thoughts on this over Xmas hopefully.

The Lion

DobboDobbo · Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:52 pm

Looking forward to your thoughts The Lion!

DiscoverCSG · Fri Dec 23, 2016 7:56 pm

Armodeen wrote:
inaforeignsky wrote:
Additionally we are hearing lots of rumours internally at BA that there are plans to take over the JFK and ORD flights at MAN from AA using a Gatwick 777 on a W pattern.

If they were serious they would use a 787, the 772 (particularly the refitted super awesometm 10 abreast 772s from gatters) will likely be too large. I appreciate that would require some A/C swaps on JFK btw. As far as I'm aware ORD isn't served from LGW anyway at the moment.

LGW-JFK-MAN-ORD-MAN-JFK-LGW consists entirely of AA/BA JBV routes.

by738 · Fri Dec 23, 2016 10:47 pm

Cant wait to see the naysayers when this comes to fruition....
The same naysayers who said BA at LGW was dead....

VS4ever · Fri Dec 23, 2016 10:51 pm

by738 wrote:
Cant wait to see the naysayers when this comes to fruition....
The same naysayers who said BA at LGW was dead....

To be fair BA at LGW was on life support to be honest with pretty much the leisure routes remaining, however DY came along and changed the game... I agree however I do hope that BA turn MAN back into at least something useful going forward.

303dk · Fri Dec 23, 2016 11:05 pm

If the JV can't make MIA work and JFK/ORD work year round, it's hard to see substantial growth outside of sun routes (which IAG seems happy to let Vueling fly).

skipness1E · Fri Dec 23, 2016 11:19 pm

by738 wrote:
Cant wait to see the naysayers when this comes to fruition....
The same naysayers who said BA at LGW was dead....

Well it's not dead, it just flies the worst hard product available B777s in the fleet and most of the based Airbus fleet are now second hand and Pier 2 at LGW South beckons, I mean who needs daylight?
Of course even LHR based BA is looking less and less like BA nowadays but to the actual point on A321LRs and B787-8s then I call fantasy on that. The B787s are all spoken for at LHR so far as IAG have been open about this. BA's issue at MAN goes far deeper, like Iberia at BCN. They have to compete against locos at loco prices at the same time as competing against LH/TP/LX/AF/KL etc. Locos are masters of P2P, legacies are feeding their own hubs. So whereas Air France can fill an A320 to CDG with connecting passengers and tourists to France, BA would be P2P only on MAN-CDG (for instance). They cannot afford the overheads and added costs of feeding MAN as it would make them even more uncompetitive than they already are and who would fly EDI/GLA/ABZ-MAN-CDG nowadays anyway? Hence on short haul BA remain uncompetitive, CFE at LCY charge top whack and have good yields at a high cost airport with no locos. CFE charters out of GLA/EDI are needed to make use of the Embraers when LCY is closed (!)

The challenge as I see it, is making money on short haul when sandwiched into a niche of no feed at the UK end coupled with higher costs and competing in the P2P space with the locos. Any long haul operation would be heavily dependent on American feeding the US end, Galley FM is suggesting LGW based B772s but that's a big aeoplane to fill at ten abreast, way bigger than anything AA operated on ORD/JFK over the winter.

Bring back the TriStar on the BA183 (!)

cornishsimon · Sat Dec 24, 2016 1:38 am

This is an interesting development.

If as suggested a BA codeshare is added on flybe Scottish routes into LHR could we now see BA codeshare added to flybe MAN routes with flybe picking up some feed ?

cs

DobboDobbo · Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:55 pm

I agree the challenge for a major LH base is to set up a feed. At MAN TCX and VS have tackled this reasonably well via BE.

I don't think anyone can argue a good case for BA mainline to open up many (if any) short haul routes from MAN. They would simply loose money. However, Vueling as a standalone with BA code could work. Again, I don't think you are looking for traffic from places like CDG. Secondary destinations in Europe with a decent carchment who would have to transfer at one kf the main hubs anyway are probably the type of place to look for, but combining this with the bucket and spade and business routes would be tough.

If they can use BE to continue to drive more UK regional traffic via MAN (which is probably better placed to handle it than either LHR or LGW) that would be a sensible move.

Difficulty they have is direct competition from VS and competition for the lower fare buckets from TCX and probably Norwegian. By the time BA get round to launching a MAN baser hey could be a bit late to the party...

User001 · Sat Dec 24, 2016 1:16 pm

There is no way the new B787's would be used for any long haul venture from MAN.

To me, the perfect fit would be the re configured B777's that will be used from Gatters. As BA have said, the cost per seat in the new B777 config will be on par with the Norwegian B787, and I seriously doubt all 25 aircraft will end up at Gatwick.

People probably thought TCX were crazy for putting high density A330's on MAN-JFK/BOS/MIA, but it seems to be working for them.

SCQ83 · Sat Dec 24, 2016 1:41 pm

If they start long-haul low-cost flights out of BCN, I could see the same for MAN and maybe Paris (instead of that OpenSkies). They could even connect with Vueling (and of course FlyBe in MAN) on all those 3 airports creating more business opportunities for IAG.

User001 · Sat Dec 24, 2016 1:58 pm

With Vueling rumoured to be setting up a base at Manchester, and the bases at Paris and Barcelona in particular also, could be a perfect fit for connections onto long haul flights.

Channex757 · Sat Dec 24, 2016 2:25 pm

More then just the lowcosts to compete with at MAN now. Look how AF/KL and LH group airlines have expanded their offerings to the business market. LH overnight the A321 to FRA and (occasionally) MUC, and AF/KL overnight their biggest narrowbody aircraft. Those early morning flights alone are the main competitor to BA's Shuttle service for higher fare passengers. LX is in there too, as is SN.

All those European legacy carriers have grown substantially at MAN since BA's pull-out. Business ticket purchasers are used to using them nowadays, so why change back to BA? LH Cargo even have flights through Manchester. It is going to be extremely tough should BA ever decide it wants to attempt some kind of return to a meaningful Manchester operation as passengers who are used to the existing players in the market via EuroHubs instead of LHR won't necessarily switch to BA if they already have Star or SkyTeam frequent flyer benefits.

If VS continues to expand and (as expected) joins SkyTeam then it'll be even tougher.

skipness1E · Sat Dec 24, 2016 4:46 pm

Part of the appeal of BA is actually the connecting opportunities via LHR where BA/AA have a huge offering and a strong JV as well as (I believe) some rather lovely lounges for folks that turn left on boarding so any long haul offering from MAN will be to compliment that, not take away from it. GLA/EDI/ABZ/BHD/NCL passengers will still br better served via LHR than a flybe DHD cia MAN T3 in terms of hard product and facilities.
Poster elsewhere suggests BA LGW 772s are intended to establish the operation with a view to right size on the B787-8 once up and running which I can see making more sense. BA have swapped out most a swathe of upcoming B789 orders down to B788s which wpuld tie in with this being a strategic move rather than a tactical reaction.

by738 · Sat Dec 24, 2016 5:13 pm

skipness1E wrote:
BA have swapped out most a swathe of upcoming B789 orders down to B788s

They have?

rutankrd · Sat Dec 24, 2016 5:20 pm

by738 wrote:
skipness1E wrote:
BA have swapped out most a swathe of upcoming B789 orders down to B788s

They have?

4 conversions to 788 models due from what i've read bringing the sublet up to the BA magical dozen.(They do like twelves)

by738 · Sat Dec 24, 2016 7:25 pm

4? there was me thinking it was a swathe of conversions !

skipness1E · Sat Dec 24, 2016 8:43 pm

Nah you're just doing your usual snide one liners. I thought it was more than four but I stand corrected. Happy Christmas by738 x

georgiabill · Sat Dec 24, 2016 10:28 pm

I would have thought BA would want more 789'S not less. Is BA having issues with their 789'S? The 788'S certainly are the plane to test out longhaul new markets. Could BA be thinking of using 788'S as a replacement for 763 routes?

tonystan · Sat Dec 24, 2016 11:18 pm

georgiabill wrote:
I would have thought BA would want more 789'S not less. Is BA having issues with their 789'S? The 788'S certainly are the plane to test out longhaul new markets. Could BA be thinking of using 788'S as a replacement for 763 routes?

All longhaul 767s are gone, they have been replaced and more. If anything the latest batch of 789s have been replacing 747s on the way out.

The routes to Africa which the 767 happened to operate on I doubt we will see operated by the speed bird anytime soon unfortunately as they simply did not pay their way or at least did not make the best use of the resources available.

DobboDobbo · Mon Dec 26, 2016 3:30 pm

skipness1E wrote:
Part of the appeal of BA is actually the connecting opportunities via LHR where BA/AA have a huge offering and a strong JV as well as (I believe) some rather lovely lounges for folks that turn left on boarding so any long haul offering from MAN will be to compliment that, not take away from it. GLA/EDI/ABZ/BHD/NCL passengers will still br better served via LHR than a flybe DHD cia MAN T3 in terms of hard product and facilities.
Poster elsewhere suggests BA LGW 772s are intended to establish the operation with a view to right size on the B787-8 once up and running which I can see making more sense.

Agree with these points:

1 - any operation at MAN needs to complement and serve potential feeds that cannot be served via LHR in particular but also DUB and MAD.

2 - the B788 makes sense for this type of operation. However they are brand new assets and it makes more sense for BA to use a paid off B772ER. Perhaps if the network from MAN works in principle anything is in the table including new aircraft like the B788/789.

Channex757 · Mon Dec 26, 2016 5:06 pm

Just where would those aircraft go? That's another important question.

T3 is becoming increasingly tapped out, especially in the mornings during the summer when AA alone wants three widebody gates. AF/KL/SN, Ryanair and FlyBE seem to handily fill the rest. If BA want to introduce widebodies back to MAN then there would need to be a lot of shuffling of other operators. Do BA actually have priority at T3 still?

David_itl · Mon Dec 26, 2016 5:14 pm

With USCBP planned for the revamped T2 sonetime 2018/19 then we know where they will end up. But if they are replacing AA (as it expected) then i imagine no impact on T3

TurnaroudUK · Mon Dec 26, 2016 7:15 pm

Channex757 wrote:
Just where would those aircraft go? That's another important question.

T3 is becoming increasingly tapped out, especially in the mornings during the summer when AA alone wants three widebody gates. AF/KL/SN, Ryanair and FlyBE seem to handily fill the rest. If BA want to introduce widebodies back to MAN then there would need to be a lot of shuffling of other operators. Do BA actually have priority at T3 still?

No they gave that up a long time ago when they scaled the operation back

DobboDobbo · Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:52 pm

As a general point, I expect long haul and full service carriers to end up in the expanded T2.

European/short haul low cost carriers I expect to end up in T3 (which I expect to get expanded or replaced after T2 is complete).

eurowings · Tue Dec 27, 2016 2:03 pm

User001 wrote:
With Vueling rumoured to be setting up a base at Manchester, and the bases at Paris and Barcelona in particular also, could be a perfect fit for connections onto long haul flights.

At MAN, Vueling is currently about the same size as Norwegian - now might be the right time to establish a small base as MAN prepares for its terminal transformation. Vueling is lean enough to be able to compete with Ryanair, Jet2 etc on short-haul, yet allows IAG to establish some directly owned short-haul presence.

User001 · Tue Dec 27, 2016 2:12 pm

eurowings wrote:
User001 wrote:
With Vueling rumoured to be setting up a base at Manchester, and the bases at Paris and Barcelona in particular also, could be a perfect fit for connections onto long haul flights.

At MAN, Vueling is currently about the same size as Norwegian - now might be the right time to establish a small base as MAN prepares for its terminal transformation. Vueling is lean enough to be able to compete with Ryanair, Jet2 etc on short-haul, yet allows IAG to establish some directly owned short-haul presence.

Well, stage one of the process has started, as Vueling have applied for slots for a 2 aircraft base with enough slots for 61 weekly flights. When you take out the current away based flights, it accounts for about 5 flights a day for the 2 aircraft. (3 short sectors for one and 1 short 1 long for the other)

LX138 · Tue Dec 27, 2016 8:40 pm

DobboDobbo wrote:
3 - VS have made great strides at MAN and are no longer offering leisure only routes. It is reasonable to assume that in 2018 they will offer the following routes from MAN: ATL, JFK, SFO, BOS, MCO, BGI, LAS, LAX (2018) and MIA (2018). That is a lot of market lost to BA. Furthermore, they are using BE to drive connecting traffic from the regions away from BA. VS are clearly planning and implementing a significant operation at MAN.

I think emulating this is possible but VS have no alternative but to pursue this as a way of growing the business due to slots issues et al down south, BA can still upsize in LON.

DobboDobbo wrote:
1 - BA are now part of IAG, and primarily funnel MAN originating passengers through LHR (BA) and DUB (EI).

They won't be 'funneling' any more pax through DUB anytime soon.

DobboDobbo wrote:
8 - MAN is investing a significant amount of money in new capacity and facilities. It is one of the few large UK airports with the potential for double digit growth over the next few years.

No more than any of the other big airports!

DobboDobbo wrote:
So what may be in it for BA (and IAG?) Certainly the chance to undermine competition, but also to drive more
Passengers from Europe on IAG metal to North America. The possible route network must broadly reflect that of VS and TCX. Clearly JFK and ORD are in the frame as a takeover from AA, I also think DFW and LAX could be in the frame in order to steal some traffic on the Kangaroo route.

I would argue that BA sending a pax from MAN and through LHR would be better for competing on the Kangaroo route, you can then offer them flight time choices, one of the better products (on the 77W at least) and probably one of the quickest routings.

DobboDobbo wrote:
The B788 would be great for these routes, but the B772ER would probably be the available airframe. This might be okay for JFK (particularly in the summer) but for the rest it looks like overkill. ORD used to be a route with 250k pax per year so it may be able to support a daily B772. If LAX or DFW can capture some of the kangaroo market it too might be feasible.

The big problem I have is what to do with the shuttle? MAN flights won't work if a significant proportion of its northern customer base is shuttled down to LHR. Equally, it would be crazy to ditch or significantly cut the shuttle numbers to LHR. Could some eastbound flyers be routed via QR with some BA flights to specific OW hubs (e.g. HKG, TYO, KUL)? Might this reduce the need for a significant number of shuttles? I would say, probably not.

The volume is there if you want it so the 10 abreast 777 isn't necessarily too big, the question is at what price do you want to sell those seats?

You would need an enormous upscale in a connecting operation at MAN to consider reducing the shuttle services, as they are of course funneling people down into the LHR system. I'm not sure why you would want to route someone via QR either as you are immediately giving another airline the business although its a interesting strategy!

DobboDobbo · Tue Dec 27, 2016 9:02 pm

Cheers for the response! Just picking up on a couple of these points:

Why are IAG no longer funnelling through DUB? (Perhaps I've missed something?)

Fair point with VS, but it is harder for BA to expand at LHR if their UK regional traffic declines due to direct services.

Equally, the BA Kangaroo route via LHR cannot compete at MAN due to the variety of one stop options from SQ, CX, EK, EY, QR. Each of these offer better timings and product to BA from MAN when compared with the equivalent class of BA. my suggestion to route via LAX/DFW was a way of BA levelling the playing field on time whilst supporting what would probably be a marginal route on a B772...

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net