P.s.
Agree with the shuttle service. I don't see what BA can do to sort this issue.

DobboDobbo wrote:

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

They are but it's unlikely to be 'any more' than they used to, the capacity is not there at the moment.

DobboDobbo wrote:

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

How so, because the feed would reduce? I'd say onward European connections from the regions wouldn't count for more than 5% so a change is negligible.

DobboDobbo wrote:

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...

If they couldn't compete then they wouldn't be operating the route. I'd say the Y product is as good as any of those other carriers and it's currently a 77W not a 772 (in the case of SYD).

BA operate ONE thats right ONE evening UK departure to ONE thats right ONE Australian destination.

The ME3 operate several one stop services every day to Adelaide, Canberra, Perth, Melbourne, Brisbane in addition to Sydney and Auckland.

Singapore add one stop to Cairns,and Darwin (via Silk brand), Cathay will get you to all those points via Hong Kong again one stop,

Frankly BA are long gone from being a major Kangaroo player.

As for EI (IAG) and going west via Dublin I concur with you - the numbers are actually rather small and the vast majority of MAN-DUB remains point to point local traffic especially as the only flight that actually provides meaningful connections into the TALC operations is EI202 each day.

A.netters perceived IAG strategy regarding using EI and regional UK feed isn't stacking up is it - LPL going/CWL handed to Flybe/DSA gone and many others handed to Stobart.

Indeed Willy Walsh has said as much as to the point EI won't be complementary to BA/AA operations any time soon.

Personal opinion BA should not be welcomed back at Manchester anytime soon - They will assuredly damage what the airport has today and retreat again imho.

In terms of the feed, from MAN (and I suspect LBA and NCL) the BA service to LHR will be substantially long hail connecting traffic. ckearly amongst that is a fairly significant amount of capacity which if lost would act as a fairly significant drag on expansion.

Of the MAN-Australia and/or NZ traffic I bet BA has less that 0.5% market share (and I think that's being generous). That's a pretty big market they could try to tap into.

Would love to see BA take over MAN - ORD!

globalcabotage wrote:

Would love to see BA take over MAN - ORD!

i would like to see American simply regain some reliability on a route they have operated for a quarter of a century.

The 757 used in the shoulder seasons and canned due to performance issues in Jan-Mar need to go, Better they remain year round and a reduced service in those months to a four weekly 763 than what they have been doing for the last few years.

The question is whether the BA B772 is oversized for the MAN-ORD route. I don't doubt the seats could be filled, but at what price/yield?

DobboDobbo wrote:

Of the MAN-Australia and/or NZ traffic I bet BA has less that 0.5% market share (and I think that's being generous). That's a pretty big market they could try to tap into.

It is but it's almost entirely O&D and leisure. As the last poster just pointed out, if they are only willing to operate the one rotation from LHR I can't seem them launching MAN!

ORD does seem realistic, and it's a market they have lots of data on. That said my idea if they really wanted to do something would be:

JFK 1x daily 772
MCO 5 weekly 772

...and then just throw everything at it, big advertising, celebrities, whatever it takes. If VS can make it work I'm sure they could too, the premium leisure market is still an attractive one. A W flying pattern from LON could also make it more feasible.

rutankrd wrote:

The 757 used in the shoulder seasons and canned due to performance issues in Jan-Mar need to go, Better they remain year round and a reduced service in those months to a four weekly 763 than what they have been doing for the last few years.

Agreed, the service inconsistency, and the 757 - people just cannot take the route seriously, let alone any corporate clientele.

LX138 wrote:

It is but it's almost entirely O&D and leisure. As the last poster just pointed out, if they are only willing to operate the one rotation from LHR I can't seem them launching MAN!

Apologies - I was not clear.

I was not suggesting that BA operate MAN-XXX-SYD/MEL.

I was suggesting that BA operate MAN-LAX/DFW and try to syncrinise with Qantas' and AA's flights to SYD/MEL/AKL as an alternative routing in competition to EK, EY, CX, SQ.

The reason why is because a B772 MAN-LAX is a marginal route (if at all feasible). However, grabbing kangaroo traffic might just make it a profitable endeavour for BA and IAG.

Regarding capacity and fares I would not be surprised to see MAN (and LGW) used as a test bed for a "basic" World Traveller fare which excludes a checked bag and seat assignment etc.

Alex Cruz has been quite clear that he thinks BA has to match Norwegian on price.

In that regard BA is probably quite well placed at MAN to offer a "full fat" business class fare and product as well as the basic loco basic world traveller economy (and all in between).

Flying from MAN to major AA hubs in the US should reduce the reliance on O&D, and USPC should reduce the attractiveness of transferring at LHR.

LHRFlyer wrote:

Regarding capacity and fares I would not be surprised to see MAN (and LGW) used as a test bed for a "basic" World Traveller fare which excludes a checked bag and seat assignment etc.

Alex Cruz has been quite clear that he thinks BA has to match Norwegian on price.

BA has to match or better TCX at Manchester. Go look at some of the fares TCX is selling their JFK and LAX services at.

Those are offering a comfortable seat, checked baggage and a James Martin meal for bargain rates and their Premium Economy prices are outstanding compared to some other airlines. Not just an Economy seat with slightly better food either; 2-3-2 on the A332 and a 32Kg checked baggage allowance for roughly a third more over their Y price. Connectivity at JFK and Orlando is provided by JetBlue which gives TCX coverage into secondary markets.

The environment up at MAN is very different to what it was when BA pulled out. Competition from the Big Three US carriers together with VS and TCX across the pond means that BA will have the Devil's own job trying to slot into that.

After reading this thread, I am surprised at the level of animosity toward BA felt outside of LHR. I realize that they basically drew down MAN into nothing but an LHR feeder, but given the way the market changes and a lack of endless resources, they went after the money. That's what any organization would have done. And one could argue that MAN shorthaul is better for it.

As for re-entering a market such as MANJFK, I could see it happening if BA was seriously trying to re-establish itself in Manchester. For all of the negativity on this thread, perhaps some of it personal, I think the public would forget very quickly, especially if there really was no other option besides a DL seasonal flight to New York. I could see a few other routes from MAN working too, if BA/AA wanted to swap metal on ORD or perhaps add MIA/FLL. Maybe this all fantasy fodder, and I don't have the numbers to back any of it up, but I suspect there are opportunities...and there is also the issue of equipment.
The question is does BA want to sink a lot of money into resuming MAN longhaul operations? Probably not right now.

richierich wrote:

After reading this thread, I am surprised at the level of animosity toward BA felt outside of LHR. I realize that they basically drew down MAN into nothing but an LHR feeder, but given the way the market changes and a lack of endless resources, they went after the money. That's what any organization would have done. And one could argue that MAN shorthaul is better for it.

As for re-entering a market such as MANJFK, I could see it happening if BA was seriously trying to re-establish itself in Manchester. For all of the negativity on this thread, perhaps some of it personal, I think the public would forget very quickly, especially if there really was no other option besides a DL seasonal flight to New York. I could see a few other routes from MAN working too, if BA/AA wanted to swap metal on ORD or perhaps add MIA/FLL. Maybe this all fantasy fodder, and I don't have the numbers to back any of it up, but I suspect there are opportunities...and there is also the issue of equipment.
The question is does BA want to sink a lot of money into resuming MAN longhaul operations? Probably not right now.

I don't think BA will be risking too much money on this. It is maximising the use of existing assets by deferring the retirement of 3 Boeing 747s and extending the life of the Boeing 777 to 30 years and is "densifying" this fleet.

I agree I can't see Manchester Airport discouraging BA. It is part of IAG and all four brands serve the airport with Vueling expected to expand at the airport next year. So it's a big and growing customer of the airport.

The travelling public have forgotten far bigger misdemeanours by BA than it withdrawing MAN-JFK.

As a BAEC member, and MAN being the most convenient airport to me (in Sheffield), on one hand I'd love to see BA offer more than it's shuttle services to LHR.

Having said that, at what cost to MAN? Would BA simply tip the balance of the VS/DL and TCX trans-Atlantic route expansion by dumping high-density 772 capacity on the market? I can imagine BA gatecrashing that network development only to retreat to London if TCX or VS found they could no longer compete.

BA is in a metal neutral JV (with AA et al) across the pond, so why bother unless it was to takeover routes with the 772 during peak season, then hand back over to AA, with a smaller aircraft, during off-peak (similar to DL/VS metal swaps).

With FY, BA also have JV opportunities from MAN to Asia.

BA also codeshare from MAN with IAG siblings to MAD and BCN, giving acces to IB long-haul and whatever new venture develops at BCN.

And with the QR JV, do BA not now have more of a one-stop via DOH network to Australia, S/SE Asia to offer from MAN? QR serve MAN twice daily so with extra demand from BA codeshares IAG could grow its market share that way.

Personally, I think BA should stick to direct LH ops from LON; leave MAN to its JV partners + EI and existing LHR shuttle services. I also think MAN should think really carefully before being so open to BA long-haul expansion, which may come at the expense of other carriers who have shown more commitment to non-LON long-haul services.

LHRFlyer wrote:

The travelling public have forgotten far bigger misdemeanours by BA than it withdrawing MAN-JFK.

A flight I had taken several times in years gone by too - funny about the B763s assigned this route being hangar queens. I'd say BA were running roughly 50% in my limited sample size of about six or seven flights MANJFK. I can think of two times I had to connect via LHR thanks to the plane going tech at the gate at MAN, and a third time we took a significant (>1hr) delay. I didn't give it much thought at the time but maybe BA really were 'mailing it in' even back then.

If BA was to come back in force, my own suggestion would be to look east and not west. DEL,BOM and BKK. All three underserved from the North West except for connections via FRA and LHR and the odd Thomson 787 to Thailand. The traffic flow is there and would suit low density LGW aircraft.

I agree that BA should probably be sighting the East rather than the west. Personally just don't think there is enough business pax demand there to make the key routes viable. I am also from Sheffield and MAN is always my preference.

I travel a lot to Europe via Heathrow. The day usually starting at 2am for a dash down the motorway to heathrow to connect myself with the early morning flights to europe. I always meet fellow travellers who have also done the ridiculous drive or had to travel down the day before and stay in a hotel.

With a lot of my work being in eastern europe - I do hate having to connect via Brussels, Amsterdam and Frankfurt. I do occasionally find myself having to fly Ryanair. But their flight times rarely suit.

I rarely ever get on a BA aircraft heading to Europe which doesn't seem to be full. Surely there is demand in the north of England for BA to open some european routes. With the northern power house scheme focusing around Manchester. Surely they should be eyeing it up.

No way are BA going to go East out of MAN, the ME3 have that sewn up between them.
There's a lot of emotion regarding BA at MAN as people remember BOAC and BA pulling out all the stops to prevent new long haul competition out of MAN, they fought AA and SQ tooth and nail. Then even with a strong position and a based fleet of jets, the long haul offering was sparse and poorly thought out and basically non core to golden runways at LHR.

Thing is, half the people who fought those battles are likely retired or even dead by now. BA are very strong on the North Atlantic and as part of a wider strategy to protect that, they need to make sure even more market share that would otherwise connect via LHR doesn't bleed away to DY. Hence use some high density paid off B772s rotated through LGW-JFK on JFK/ORD as the rumour goes. AA seem to no longer care about MAN-ORD which is shocking IMHO but it's been that way for while now.

BA used G-BNWH for many years at MAN for flight BA1503 and it had a marked down MTOW to reduce fees. When NWH was moved to LHR the MAN based aircraft rotated every couple of weeks via the Shuttle and the MTOW of G-BNWH was increased to that of the other longhaul config 767s.

There are clearly a lot of issues for BA to resolve in order to make a long haul operation work at MAN.

One of those is route network. I don't know the extent of the network required, but I am pretty clear that the direction should be West not East. As Skipness notes, the MEB3 have a significant network heading east from MAN. Other airlines have significant eastern networks (Turkish, Oman) and there are a large number of more direct eastern routes (albeit to hubs) like SIN, HKG, PEK. By the time BA get set up at MAN, these are likely to be joined by BKK, PVG and possibly TYO. The network opportunities for BA are westbound.

AA have been a disaster on the ORD route which has collapsed from 250k per annum to a seasonal trickle or circa 80k. With a bit of thought and planning, flying B772's to AA hubs in the US should work in a similar fashion to the MEB3 heading east.

TCX and shortly Norwegian will Hoover up much of the lower yielding passenger traffic. They will be difficult for BA to displace. UA have struggled and pled the IAD route next year. They should probably focus on EWR but they may be crowded out if they don't evolve.

The VS/DL joint venture looks like the model to copy, with the UK brand flying to the US brands hubs. This strategy is the one that probably has BA worried the most as, unchecked, they can probably capture most of the U.S. business market.

Looking at potential routes: JFK and ORD should work on a B772 in the summer months. It will be more challenging over the winter, but I feel it is important to develop a regular service and product. Looking further afield, LAX and DFW seem to be obvious targets to me, albeit probably not a daily flight. MCO would be a good bucket and spade route and I don't think IAD would be a good move given UAs problems there.

I think its possible to grow some long haul routes East or West but you have to be very choosy over what you start. I don't think DFW would work as the city would need to be place that at least half of the Manchester folk would actually want to stop and visit IMO (one a regular, year round basis). So therefore:

ORD, JFK, EWR, MCO, MIA would all be good bets and can also be used for connections if that's warranted
BOS - could work?
YYZ - possible
BKK - incredibly low yield, BA having issues with the LHR flight as it it, so no
BOM, DEL - no, market saturated and it's all about cheap seats
LAX - probably not, they tried it before and it didn't last long. Yield probably too low

TFS/ACE - could work? Not as crazy as it seems, a 772 would kill off TCX
LCA - same as above? Did GB Airways run this at one time?

SIN - possible, would be interesting to know if sending a flight to intercept the LHR arrival and enable connections onto SYD would be a goer?

Some good views there LX138.

JFK/EWR - I think BA would focus on one of these (certainly to start with) which I expect to be JFK for the onward connections.
ORD - I think this would work well, but may need a slight frequency reduction over a short winter period.
MCO - I think BA would be crazy not to try this.
MIA - possibly a good one for transfers, but may impact MCO?
LAX - I think there is a good chance this would work if done correctly. There are a number of reasons it did not work last time, which I don't think should apply this time. The expanding media industry in the Manchester area should help this. Issue may be competition from TCX and VS.

YYZ - I expect AC on this route within a year or two. At face value, Canada seems underserved from MAN so who knows.
BKK - I expect to see TG on this route within 18 months. No point.
BOM/DEL - as above, but with AI and possibly Scoot.
SIN - interesting idea. Although SQ are far better placed for a night service to SIN from MAN.

I don't think BA will do much if any short haul from MAN. They will leave that Vueling, Citiflyer and other franchises.

LX138 wrote:

I think its possible to grow some long haul routes East or West but you have to be very choosy over what you start. I don't think DFW would work as the city would need to be place that at least half of the Manchester folk would actually want to stop and visit IMO (one a regular, year round basis). So therefore:

ORD, JFK, EWR, MCO, MIA would all be good bets and can also be used for connections if that's warranted
BOS - could work?
YYZ - possible
BKK - incredibly low yield, BA having issues with the LHR flight as it it, so no
BOM, DEL - no, market saturated and it's all about cheap seats
LAX - probably not, they tried it before and it didn't last long. Yield probably too low

TFS/ACE - could work? Not as crazy as it seems, a 772 would kill off TCX
LCA - same as above? Did GB Airways run this at one time?

SIN - possible, would be interesting to know if sending a flight to intercept the LHR arrival and enable connections onto SYD would be a goer?

All good points but,

TCX to TFS/ACE is part of the Thomas Cook Holidays flying program so how would a BA 772 be going to kill off TCX, same could be said about TUI.

There's going to be passengers on packages whether its BA or TCX, whether the route is actually making money is a different matter...
On TFS/ACE theres probably sufficient demand for them both eitherhow. That said there are bigger fish to fry than those destinations!

MAN-TFS would be up against multiple daily frequencies from Jet2, Monarch, easyJet, Ryanair, Vueling, Norwegian, Thomas Cook and Thomson. IAG cover the route through Vueling. Not sure a BA 772 has a chance!

More fuel added to the fire. I'm sceptical at BA moving to T1, so treat this with a pinch of salt, but things seem to be going on.

http://www.headforpoints.com/2017/02/12 ... -york-jfk/

DobboDobbo wrote:

More fuel added to the fire. I'm sceptical at BA moving to T1, so treat this with a pinch of salt, but things seem to be going on.

http://www.headforpoints.com/2017/02/12 ... -york-jfk/

I'm sceptical too, because T1 (besides the lack of domestic gates which would make their operation difficult) it is bursting at the seams. During the summer there is such little space for manoeuvre, it can barely cope as it is, so I can't imagine a few long haulers from BA thrown into the mix. If true, it will be chaos.

One huge (and I mean elephant in room huge) change since BA pulled out of doing regional longhaul and point to point at MAN/BHX is that passengers now buy online.

The interweb tubes and all that.

Travel agents are a memory, mostly. Without getting into a huge ramble on the subject the internet and various fare aggregator sites like Expedia have taken a sledgehammer to the previous ticket sales model. Punters now put in their desired destination and go "ooh look that flight is from Manchester and doesn't need a change at Heathrow".

The catchment areas of the big metropolitan airports like MAN and BHX now benefit from passengers who are more aware of other options, and readily book them. That slog down to Heathrow in the car or on a National Express bus isn't seemingly mandatory any more.

The real gainers (apart from the ME3+1) have been Air France and Lufthansa.

Danfearn77 wrote:

DobboDobbo wrote:

More fuel added to the fire. I'm sceptical at BA moving to T1, so treat this with a pinch of salt, but things seem to be going on.

http://www.headforpoints.com/2017/02/12 ... -york-jfk/

I'm sceptical too, because T1 (besides the lack of domestic gates which would make their operation difficult) it is bursting at the seams. During the summer there is such little space for manoeuvre, it can barely cope as it is, so I can't imagine a few long haulers from BA thrown into the mix. If true, it will be chaos.

I thought T1 does have domestic gates due to the fact Aurigny, Easyjet (to Belfast) and Aer Lingus (CTA) use the terminal. Carousel 6 is designed for domestic ops, but would probably need 6 to be a permanent domestic reclaim rather than the part time model it currently uses.

Channex757 wrote:

The catchment areas of the big metropolitan airports like MAN and BHX now benefit from passengers who are more aware of other options, and readily book them. That slog down to Heathrow in the car or on a National Express bus isn't seemingly mandatory any more.

The real gainers (apart from the ME3+1) have been Air France and Lufthansa.

Exactly. if you live anywhere outside the South / South East, there's just no point in trudging all the way to Heathrow or Gatwick and risk getting stuck on the M25. Better take a flight from MAN or BHX on any number of large intercontinental airlines that serve the Midlands and North of England and change in their hub city - be it Air France, Emirates, KLM, Brussels Airlines, Etihad, SWISS and so forth.
Of course you could also fly BA from MAN via LHR if so inclined. But my bugbear is that BA operate some longhaul flights (including MRU which is of interest to me) from LGW and yet offer NO connection possibility from any English airport. So anyone wishing to fly to the destinations they offer from LGW and who don't want to spend hours in the car or coach getting to LGW have to rule BA off the list.

Now if LHR had a rail link to the rest of the country...

Surely the idea would be to swap someone else out with any BA/AA moving in. Technically moving back in

User001 wrote:

Danfearn77 wrote:

DobboDobbo wrote:

More fuel added to the fire. I'm sceptical at BA moving to T1, so treat this with a pinch of salt, but things seem to be going on.

http://www.headforpoints.com/2017/02/12 ... -york-jfk/

I'm sceptical too, because T1 (besides the lack of domestic gates which would make their operation difficult) it is bursting at the seams. During the summer there is such little space for manoeuvre, it can barely cope as it is, so I can't imagine a few long haulers from BA thrown into the mix. If true, it will be chaos.

I thought T1 does have domestic gates due to the fact Aurigny, Easyjet (to Belfast) and Aer Lingus (CTA) use the terminal. Carousel 6 is designed for domestic ops, but would probably need 6 to be a permanent domestic reclaim rather than the part time model it currently uses.

It does your right, but T1 is so constrained I struggle to see how any additional flights whatsoever can be accommodated. Some of the domestics that arrive now, I believe GR and some EZY Belfast flights are bussed to domestic arrivals due to constraints but maybe someone in the know can clarify that.

T3 has long haul stands and the obvious domestic capabilities so I struggle to see why they'd move to T1 which in all honesty is a shambles in summer.

I'm sure they'd want to be in T2 when it is rebuilt (USPC by 2019). Maybe T3 is unable to handle the B772s but T1 can?

I think Skipness is correct - someone will move out of T1 and into T2 or T3.

Doesn't T3 have a gate to handle up to a 744? Is it gate 44 or 49. I could be wrong

T3 is more than capable of B772 and B744. T2 will be the eventual aim due to USPC but let's not forget current T1 stands will eventually be T2 stands.

QANTAS has JetStar, SQ has the Scoot experiment - is it time for BA to think on similar lines?

Not an airline within an airline - that idea has never worked! But a separate airline based at MAN operating on its own AOC and its own product line to better compete with the LoCo's.

Say MAN-ORD-EDI-ORD-MAN?

I can't see BA moving into T1. Reason? Lounges. The Terraces lounge specifically. There would be nothing except third party lounges in T1, and no point building one either as it's getting demolished soon.

As for an independent airline, that would be done via the IAG parent. Maybe they could dust off Openskies and use that here? Lots of options for Wicked Willie at IAG to consider, not necessarily being tied to BA but with close links such as Openskies operates with. They could even be brewing up something which operates out of places like Barcelona and Manchester as a standalone under the IAG umbrella.

Although offering some economy, OpenSkies is marketed as Premium Economy/low Business Class, so unless they have (another) radical model shift, I cant see them pitching up at MAN, though the 757/767 size would be about right.
Maybe all the chat of new terminals and lounges is a bit over ambitious given there has been no real enhanced mainline commitment

Didn't BA run a MAN-JFK flight operated by BA CityFlyer for quite a while on a 763 (or 762?)?

With all the in-house sub-brands these days like Rouge and Eurowings, that MAN-JFK flight was really Christmas Future in a lot of ways.

Stand 44 used to take the B744 on the BA Islamabad run at T3, of which there are surprisingly few photos!
BA MAN-JFK was a mainline TriStar, B763 then a BA Regional B763 then back to mainline then finally cabin crew were BA CitiExpress at the end. (Is that right?)

BA may have given up on the 767 way too soon. However, they are still being built. That could fit the 200-seat market (configuration was C24W24Y141 with 3 crew-only seats in the final row) if new ones are ordered with split scimitar winglets. There will be a need to compete against VS and MT...MT offering 321-seat all-economy A332s and VS offering 3-class 266-seat A333s. If DY or D8 ever enters Ringway, I see BA moving a Heathrow flight at JFK to Ringway, and operating that as a W route with the Gatwick flight (LGW-JFK-MAN-JFK-LGW).

by738 wrote:

Although offering some economy, OpenSkies is marketed as Premium Economy/low Business Class, so unless they have (another) radical model shift, I cant see them pitching up at MAN, though the 757/767 size would be about right.
Maybe all the chat of new terminals and lounges is a bit over ambitious given there has been no real enhanced mainline commitment

The only remaining Worldwide 767-300ER in IAG (the former G-BNWI) is now at OpenSkies. I believe that BA gave up too soon on the model. If the remaining ones aren't too high-time or high-cycle, it might be worth to move them to MAN for some long-haul service.

MT offering 321-seat all-economy A332s and VS offering 3-class 266-seat A333s.

MT do also offer premium economy, and creating quite a good name for themselves with the product also by all accounts.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

BA may have given up on the 767 way too soon. However, they are still being built. That could fit the 200-seat market (configuration was C24W24Y141 with 3 crew-only seats in the final row) if new ones are ordered with split scimitar winglets. There will be a need to compete against VS and MT...MT offering 321-seat all-economy A332s and VS offering 3-class 266-seat A333s. If DY or D8 ever enters Ringway, I see BA moving a Heathrow flight at JFK to Ringway, and operating that as a W route with the Gatwick flight (LGW-JFK-MAN-JFK-LGW).

BA won't bring the 767 back. If it wanted something of this size for flights out of MAN, and didn't want to stump for more 788s, then parent IAG would surely look at A330s for commonality with EI/IB. BA isn't going to add an orphan fleet for MAN.

Agreed. If they want a smaller widebody, they'll base the B788/9. Most likely they'll open up with the B772. Quite how that size of aircraft will work on the likely routes, time will tell.

There is a way to look at which aircraft could be used for MAN. 25 B772 are going to be reconfigured into the new high density configuration in the next 2-3 years. WW has already said they will not be based at LHR, and WW also said the aircraft will offer a better yield potential than the Norwegian B787.

So, Gatwick is currently at 13(?) frames. That means they would need to add a rate of 4 B777 per year to the Gatwick base over 3 years if all 25 were to be based there, which considering Gatwick is also becoming slot constrained, especially for good based slots, it's not inconceivable that some of those newly configured B772 will find homes in the UK outside London.

The B772 does make sense... Paid off asset as well I assume. Less pressure to deliver a premium return...

They used to fill a three class 243 seat TriStar daily on MAN-JFK. They're looking at taking on AA's B757/B763's worth of JFK traffic and possibly ORD. The B772 is a step up but a major statement of intent against DY more than VS I think. Strategic move, btw unless these LGW 777s are refreshed before this kicks off, they have the worst hard product on BA long haul in terms of tired interior and non standard, sub par IFE.
25 high density B772s with NONE at LHR sounds wrong btw. Can you link to that? That would mean + 12 for non LHR long haul and 1) they don't have 12 like for like newbies coming to LHR 2) they're not doubling the size of long haul at Gatters

All along since announcing at investor day and in the office since, the 25 aircraft have purely been reffered to as 'the new Gatwick configuration', and while I can't link the quotes, I've seen several that suggest BA don't want to mix the configs into the LHR fleet due to product consistency and fleet rotation.

So Gatwick is doubling in size in 3 years? I think perhaps some people are doing 2+2=5. The B787-8 and A320 series are already high density in Y and ten abreast B777s are an everyday with NZ, AC, QR etc at LHR.