Seems like this incredibly capable and efficient aircraft was tailor made for their LCY-JFK service.
Able to fly the steep 5.5 degree glideslope, take 40-45 pax nonstop to NY and meet all noise restrictions
while burning far less fuel than the A318's currently used which have to stop in SNN.
Of course they can preclear customs and immigration there but I don't see that being more important than
a non stop flight for the mostly business traveler on this flight.
So is BA going to buy it ?
There may be other airports that can use this aircraft's unique capabilities that were only served by
turboprops before.
Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
BA and the CS100 at LCY
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
GGg
GGg
-
- Auchmithie
- Posts: 212
- Joined:
Re: BA and the CS100 at LCY
As the LCY-JFK service appears to be hanging by a thread highly doubtful.
-
- skipness1E
- Posts: 4875
- Joined:
Re: BA and the CS100 at LCY
I don't see any commercial point to LCY-JFK once Crossrail is up and running. No USP in a slow jet with no pre-clearance and zero lounge facilites. No selling point on speed or overall experience or indeed frequency IMHO.
Unless BA have a new corporate client to underpin the service, I suspect it will quietly vanish.
Unless BA have a new corporate client to underpin the service, I suspect it will quietly vanish.
Re: BA and the CS100 at LCY
Entirely agree. If the service lasts into 2020 I'll be (pleasantly) surprised.
In recent times they have been unable to fill 384 seats a week at a fare which covered the costs and have cut back to 192 seats a week.
The CS100 offers lower fuel costs, true. But all the rest of the costs remain unaltered, and you have to buy or lease new planes to get that lower fuel cost, when the existing A318s are only 7 years old (so not written down to anywhere near zero in the accounts) and have little resale value other than as parts.
Equally important, Willie Walsh, CEO of BA's parent company IAG, has said publicly this year that they won't be ordering C-series planes.
In recent times they have been unable to fill 384 seats a week at a fare which covered the costs and have cut back to 192 seats a week.
The CS100 offers lower fuel costs, true. But all the rest of the costs remain unaltered, and you have to buy or lease new planes to get that lower fuel cost, when the existing A318s are only 7 years old (so not written down to anywhere near zero in the accounts) and have little resale value other than as parts.
Equally important, Willie Walsh, CEO of BA's parent company IAG, has said publicly this year that they won't be ordering C-series planes.
Re: BA and the CS100 at LCY
There was already a thread about this recently and loads of reasons why BA (would NOT buy it) were stated.
Should continue that thread.
Crossrail will make a direct connection between LHR and the City seamless but it will still be slow. Similar to what happens when you fly to Paris Orly for example. So it would not deter the businessmen flying in and out to London or vice versa. I used to work in the City and the ride from Canary Wharf to LCY was much quicker than the CrossRaill will ever dream to be plus the fact that it may get overcrowded during the day (CrossRail cannot be compared to Heathrow Express for example in terms of comfort).
However, it will still drag some passengers.
Also, people underestimate the Immigration Clearance Process/Time at JFK which can be very time consuming so I still think that the Clearance at SNN is key (note that an LCY flight with no pre-clearance would also have to use different gates @ JFK meaning maybe more time to dislocate within the Airport plus clearance, plus luggage, etc.) for saving time (better clear on a small Airport than @ JFK) so the stopover is actually still an USP regardless of having an aircraft that can make all the way with no stop.
I would say that, even if BA would ditch a couple of Aircraft that are barely 7 years old for the CS100, that stop would still occur so the fuel benefit is virtually inexistent until JFK can offer, for example, a proper fast track service for business class.
Back to London links, when CrossRail comes on, plus probably, a significant improvement of LHR experience (which from T5 is already pretty good), BA will probably re-access and, likely, may ditch the whole LCY-JFK experience.
The clue is in the number of aircrafts it has for it (only 2 with one already not flying often).
Should continue that thread.
Crossrail will make a direct connection between LHR and the City seamless but it will still be slow. Similar to what happens when you fly to Paris Orly for example. So it would not deter the businessmen flying in and out to London or vice versa. I used to work in the City and the ride from Canary Wharf to LCY was much quicker than the CrossRaill will ever dream to be plus the fact that it may get overcrowded during the day (CrossRail cannot be compared to Heathrow Express for example in terms of comfort).
However, it will still drag some passengers.
Also, people underestimate the Immigration Clearance Process/Time at JFK which can be very time consuming so I still think that the Clearance at SNN is key (note that an LCY flight with no pre-clearance would also have to use different gates @ JFK meaning maybe more time to dislocate within the Airport plus clearance, plus luggage, etc.) for saving time (better clear on a small Airport than @ JFK) so the stopover is actually still an USP regardless of having an aircraft that can make all the way with no stop.
I would say that, even if BA would ditch a couple of Aircraft that are barely 7 years old for the CS100, that stop would still occur so the fuel benefit is virtually inexistent until JFK can offer, for example, a proper fast track service for business class.
Back to London links, when CrossRail comes on, plus probably, a significant improvement of LHR experience (which from T5 is already pretty good), BA will probably re-access and, likely, may ditch the whole LCY-JFK experience.
The clue is in the number of aircrafts it has for it (only 2 with one already not flying often).
-
- Flyingabout
- Posts: 44
- Joined:
Re: BA and the CS100 at LCY
Although an orphan fleet, the A318 fits in neatly with the huge A320 fleet BA has based in LGW and LHR, particularly from a crew training and maintenance standpoint. To have just 2 alien CS100s to replace the the LCY-JFK service would make no business sense, and I suspect BA would rather end the service than invest so heavily in a new aircraft type just to keep it running. It wouldn't surprise me if they're looking into whether the A319neo could land there and have that replace it.
On the subject of the Cityflyer fleet, I can see BA looking at the CSeries but ultimately going with the Embraer E2 family... but who knows?
On the subject of the Cityflyer fleet, I can see BA looking at the CSeries but ultimately going with the Embraer E2 family... but who knows?
Re: BA and the CS100 at LCY
Probably the question should be reconsidered....
Will BA be offering (business) services from London City to Paris, Frankfurt, Stockholm and Madrid?
Its a changing world with Brexit.
[They already offer cityflyer with Embraers. But do these have business class + connectivity that would allow someone to work in-flight?]
Will BA be offering (business) services from London City to Paris, Frankfurt, Stockholm and Madrid?
Its a changing world with Brexit.
[They already offer cityflyer with Embraers. But do these have business class + connectivity that would allow someone to work in-flight?]
Re: BA and the CS100 at LCY
I always wondered why BA didn't think of rerouting the flight via DUB which also offers US preclearance and especially given EI's presence at DUB. It would easily fill 2 dailies with LCY-JFK DUB-JFK and XXX-DUB-JFK traffic with tickets being sold on LCY-DUB only after XXX-DUB-JFK ticket has been sold.
Re: BA and the CS100 at LCY
Amiga500 wrote:They already offer cityflyer with Embraers. But do these have business class + connectivity that would allow someone to work in-flight?
Yes, BA CityFlyer has business class (Club Europe) on their Embrear aircraft, which is adjustable subject to demand.
They also do offer connections too with the rest of the BA network and their OneWorld partners.
Tom
Tom
Re: BA and the CS100 at LCY
lhrsfosyd wrote:I always wondered why BA didn't think of rerouting the flight via DUB which also offers US preclearance and especially given EI's presence at DUB. It would easily fill 2 dailies with LCY-JFK DUB-JFK and XXX-DUB-JFK traffic with tickets being sold on LCY-DUB only after XXX-DUB-JFK ticket has been sold.
Doesnt DUB preclearance shut early afternoon also ?
-
- oldannyboy
- Posts: 2592
- Joined:
Re: BA and the CS100 at LCY
No way - Not a chance. Feel free to refer to the similar thread of last week.
-
- longhauler
- Posts: 6488
- Joined:
Re: BA and the CS100 at LCY
While clearly the CS100 is the best aircraft for the job, the most relevant question would be whether BA even sees a case for the LCY-JFK route at all.
As ground transportation options improve, the case for LCY's very existance becomes less and less compelling.
As ground transportation options improve, the case for LCY's very existance becomes less and less compelling.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
-
- seansasLCY
- Posts: 1125
- Joined:
Re: BA and the CS100 at LCY
longhauler wrote:While clearly the CS100 is the best aircraft for the job, the most relevant question would be whether BA even sees a case for the LCY-JFK route at all.
As ground transportation options improve, the case for LCY's very existance becomes less and less compelling.
But while ground transport improves, London also moves east. Opposite LCY will be a Chinese business park home to the European HQs of a number of Chinese companies. The Isle of dogs - home to Canary Wharf is just 15 minutes by car. The traffic isn't usually bad. Going by car from Canary Wharf to LHR takes at least an hour at the moment. Most staff in London I know will expense a cab or have a company car drop them off its a business trip so Crossrail won't make much difference.
Stockholm is a good example. There is a city centre airport which is still surviving (although politicians want to close it down) despite there being a decent road and rail link to the out of town airport. London is big enough to support both.
Re: BA and the CS100 at LCY
Should be business centre to business centre. LCY-LGA, LCY-YTZ(if the gov. didn't get in the way), LCY-ORY.
Re: BA and the CS100 at LCY
Interesting, I didn't realize demand was down on this service. What about LCY-LGA instead ?
You wouldn't have the big customs and immigration delays of JFK and you would be depositing
passengers even closer to Manhattan.
You wouldn't have the big customs and immigration delays of JFK and you would be depositing
passengers even closer to Manhattan.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
GGg
GGg
-
- keitherson
- Posts: 241
- Joined:
Re: BA and the CS100 at LCY
You guys realize LGA has a perimeter rule? And YTZ does not allow jets?
Re: BA and the CS100 at LCY
Beatyair wrote:Should be business centre to business centre. LCY-LGA, LCY-YTZ(if the gov. didn't get in the way), LCY-ORY.
London to Paris air services have never been the same since the Channel Tunnel, there isn't an LCY-CDG service either, though there has been in the past.
Max Q wrote:Interesting, I didn't realize demand was down on this service. What about LCY-LGA instead ?
You wouldn't have the big customs and immigration delays of JFK and you would be depositing
passengers even closer to Manhattan.
You don't have customs and immigration delays at JFK on the LCY-JFK service because while it is refuelling at SNN the passengers go through US preclearance there. If flight delays mean the preclearance facility is unavailable or the US decides it wants everyone re-checked, there's still the option of using the normal FIS channels at JFK.
LGA has no customs and immigration facility, the only international flights that use it have come from Canada and precleared there. If there's an issue after preclearance requiring re-inspection, planes have to divert elsewhere.
Currently airport rules there don't allow longer international flights to use the place anyway. If these were changed, there's still the cost of setting up a new station, with contracts for catering, cleaning, fuelling, check-in, gate and baggage handling etc, all for 32 people a day. Whereas JFK is a major BA station with all these facilities in place, BA even runs its own terminal there.
-
- longhauler
- Posts: 6488
- Joined:
Re: BA and the CS100 at LCY
Andy33 wrote:If there's an issue after preclearance requiring re-inspection, planes have to divert elsewhere.
This is a common misconception. While the flight is certainly pre-cleared, every destination still must have customs/immigration facilities, for the reason you suggest. If a re-inspection is required (and it does happen), then the airport must be able to handle that function. Operationally, carrying fuel for a possible customs diversion would be very cumbersome and would add another set of parameters to be considered on the operational flight plan.
Sometimes, when customs is required, it is a breeze ... say DEN, for example, you just go to another gate. LGA is a nightmare ... we had to stop away from the terminal, while customs agents cleared every passenger. It took hours!
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: aca763er, adambrau, AVLAirlineFreq, B595, BA744PHX, bahmed22, BlueBaller, CHIMAA, codc10, ConorB, dcajet, f18raider, HA_DC9, HardeesBiscuit, Hash00, hongming, jake112, jashah, jetmatt777, jhdk, jreeves96, jrfspa320, kwp302, Lennundus, loranfair, MLIAA, PSU.DTW.SCE, qf789, smi0006, spartanmjf, SteelChair, StinkyPinky, SunsetLimited, timberwolf24, TommyBoy, TTailedTiger, USPIT10L, VCVSpotter, vhqpa, william, winstonavgeek and 249 guests