Link/Source: http://www.skyliner-aviation.de/regdb.main?LC=nav4

According to the link above, G-EUNB was ferried from LHR to CBG before returning to the leasing company.
How A318s for the LCY Trans Atlantic operation are left, and is/will this part of BA transatlantic operations be discontinued.

Assuming you're asking how many A318s are left, the answer is one. BA only ever used two A318s - NA and NB. As you say, NB has gone. NA remains in the fleet at least for the moment. This isn't a recent development. BA reduced LCY-JFK to once daily from the end of October 2016 rendering one of the A318s surplus to requirements

viewtopic.php?t=1341869

I believe in a year or 2 this service will be discontinued just because I've heard load factors aren't that good.

For a business person, what is the cost difference of flying out of London City to JFK vs. taking a cab to Heathrow and catching a flight (with many more time options) to JFK? I would think the business traveler, by and large, would be flying into Heathrow. Virgin Atlantic cater to the business traveler and they don't fly into London City.

Titan Airways will be the new owner/leaser of G-EUNB. I

Beatyair wrote:

For a business person, what is the cost difference of flying out of London City to JFK vs. taking a cab to Heathrow and catching a flight (with many more time options) to JFK? I would think the business traveler, by and large, would be flying into Heathrow. Virgin Atlantic cater to the business traveler and they don't fly into London City.

It's not a problem of cost, but of convenience and time. Considering the City and Canary wharf, flying to/from LCY is so much more convenient than LHR which is far. And LCY is a small airport with minimal walking from entrance to gates and not prone to delays as LHR is.

Took them long enough. They had been ferrying one of the A318's to sit at LHR for a month at a time as the other operated the only routing left. A nice waste of money.

Willie Walsh said if LCY-JFK was dropped they would reconfigure the aircraft to short haul. Seemingly not, this route's a goner IMHO

skipness1E wrote:

Willie Walsh said if LCY-JFK was dropped they would reconfigure the aircraft to short haul. Seemingly not, this route's a goner IMHO

With the Elizabeth line completion in sight and the actual trains being delivered this service is almost certainly going away.

As a Mancunian perhaps we can have our stolen JFK slot back !

Are there any other 32S routes that absolutely REQUIRE a 318 (ie cannot be flown with a 319)?

A pity if they close LCY-JFK now that the CS100 is certified for LCY. I think maybe a 20J/25Y-configured CS100 would be a nice option LCY-JFK non-stop. They'll have to clear immigration at JFK but they'll save 60-90 minutes by flying non-stop westbound instead of stopping at SNN. And the aircraft can serve other select destinations too, DME, LCA etc.

CRJ900 wrote:

A pity if they close LCY-JFK now that the CS100 is certified for LCY. I think maybe a 20J/25Y-configured CS100 would be a nice option LCY-JFK non-stop. They'll have to clear immigration at JFK but they'll save 60-90 minutes by flying non-stop westbound instead of stopping at SNN. And the aircraft can serve other select destinations too, DME, LCA etc.

Another airline should give it a go, either a British or American airline. Although continued uncertainty of financial markets after Brexit might make this a money losing route even if a C-series can get better economics.

The unique selling points of this route were that LCY is in central London and pretty small, so it was fast to get there and faster to get through. So later check-in was possible then no huge queues for security. The stop in SNN meant it arrived in JFK as a domestic US flight so no massive queue for immigration.

The second daily flight was screwed as soon as CBP announced the second flight would not receive preclearance.

This return has been on the cards for some time now. Titan was due to pick up an A318 in executive fitout and it's been on their fleet page at Jethros for a while. It does mean flexibility on the route has effectively been lost so like others I can also see it not lasting long.

b747400erf wrote:

CRJ900 wrote:

A pity if they close LCY-JFK now that the CS100 is certified for LCY. I think maybe a 20J/25Y-configured CS100 would be a nice option LCY-JFK non-stop. They'll have to clear immigration at JFK but they'll save 60-90 minutes by flying non-stop westbound instead of stopping at SNN. And the aircraft can serve other select destinations too, DME, LCA etc.

Another airline should give it a go, either a British or American airline. Although continued uncertainty of financial markets after Brexit might make this a money losing route even if a C-series can get better economics.

Odyssey airlines?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odyssey_Airlines
They have similar plans like in operation to BA LCY-JFK Service

GSTBA wrote:

Titan Airways will be the new owner/leaser of G-EUNB. I

Are they? Have there been any announcements?

Odyssey Airlines is still a virtual airline with no real credibility except a nice website and dreams of flying non stop LCY to JFK with the C Series, considering they first announced those plans about four years ago they haven't really been in any rush to purchase the C Series or indeed have they even made any further announcements regarding it.

I think we can all agree that we won't be seeing any C Series in Odessey Airlines livery at either LCY of JFK in the forseable future.

[url]v[/url]

TheGeordielad wrote:

GSTBA wrote:

Titan Airways will be the new owner/leaser of G-EUNB. I

Are they? Have there been any announcements?

It is already confirmed by both British Airways and Titan Airways, G-EUNB is currently at Marshalls Cambridge.

Cunard wrote:

[url]v[/url]

TheGeordielad wrote:

GSTBA wrote:

Titan Airways will be the new owner/leaser of G-EUNB. I

Are they? Have there been any announcements?

It is already confirmed by both British Airways and Titan Airways, G-EUNB is currently at Marshalls Cambridge.

Thanks.

Odessey Airlines is still listed as an active company in the UK and has raised a lot of money from investors.
But as noted above, nothing has been heard from them for a long while. http://www.flyody.com/
They are supposed to have the C-Series on order for operations from LCY.
Anyone have any updates?

Jethros and the BA Source also confirm the departure of G-EUNB to Titan Airways http://thebasource.com/british-airways- ... tenance-5/
I cant see the LCY - JFK route being sustainable with just G-EUNA.

I think this might be sadly spelling the beginning of the end for LCY-JFK service....

Be interesting to see what becomes of the BA001/002 flight numbers if this ends.

Personally, I wished they'd retired them in 2003 in honor of Concorde. Wonder what they'll do now: another JFK service?

CRJ900 wrote:

A pity if they close LCY-JFK now that the CS100 is certified for LCY. I think maybe a 20J/25Y-configured CS100 would be a nice option LCY-JFK non-stop. They'll have to clear immigration at JFK but they'll save 60-90 minutes by flying non-stop westbound instead of stopping at SNN. And the aircraft can serve other select destinations too, DME, LCA etc.

Sorry if I come across as abrasive -and I am not responding JUST to you- but this A.net fixation-equation "BA+LCY+CS100" is becoming a bit obsessive... and I really mean it in the best possible way...but, seriously, not a chance BA would want to go with the CS (WW has already ruled the plane out) and no way they are going to expand long/mid-haul of LCY anyway. If JFK has failed, then business-wise (J-class wise I mean) noting else will make it. And BTW, of all likely candidates... DME is under-performing and shrinking as is, and LCA is purely leisure...

Cunard wrote:

[url]v[/url]

TheGeordielad wrote:

GSTBA wrote:

Titan Airways will be the new owner/leaser of G-EUNB. I

Are they? Have there been any announcements?

It is already confirmed by both British Airways and Titan Airways, G-EUNB is currently at Marshalls Cambridge.

So BA will actually still be able to use this aircraft as a spare.

Does anyone know what Titan will do with the aircraft?
Reconfigure it to a standard Y cabin, keep it like it is as executive charter with the occasional lease to BA?

Luxair747SP wrote:

Does anyone know what Titan will do with the aircraft?
Reconfigure it to a standard Y cabin, keep it like it is as executive charter with the occasional lease to BA?

Everything I've heard says it will be kept as an executive charter aircraft, with occasional leases to cover maintenance on BA's remaining A318. Titan is BA's go-to ACMI airline.
It's difficult to see who would want to lease or spot-hire a shorthaul A318 in Western Europe, apart from Air France, but there's definitely a market for 32-seat all business planes for executive charter.

Andy33 wrote:

Luxair747SP wrote:

Does anyone know what Titan will do with the aircraft?
Reconfigure it to a standard Y cabin, keep it like it is as executive charter with the occasional lease to BA?

Everything I've heard says it will be kept as an executive charter aircraft, with occasional leases to cover maintenance on BA's remaining A318. Titan is BA's go-to ACMI airline.
It's difficult to see who would want to lease or spot-hire a shorthaul A318 in Western Europe, apart from Air France, but there's definitely a market for 32-seat all business planes for executive charter.

Thanks Andy! Makes complete sense, although they must have got it rather cheap, as they need to certify also their crew now for LCY.

Confirmed by Titan http://www.titan-airways.com/news/comin ... -a318.html

Seems a smart move for them.. and BA can always lease it back when G-EUNA is not avialable.

Yes a good move, can see this being popular with sports clubs, Chelsea and the like.

Quite pleased it's G-EUNB that was returned as that's the one I flew on when I did the service. It means I can still get on G-EUNA.

The price for the BA001 and BA002 are the same as Business Class on the normal routes out of Heathrow - they were when I was booking my flights anyway.

LAX772LR wrote:

Be interesting to see what becomes of the BA001/002 flight numbers if this ends.

Personally, I wished they'd retired them in 2003 in honor of Concorde. Wonder what they'll do now: another JFK service?

The BA1-4 flight numbers were retired when Concorde was withdrawn from service. They were only reinstated when LCY-JFK launched.

I'd be sad to see this service go. It is unique on the London - New York route and the service is a notch above Club World on LHR-JFK.

The only way i can see this route remaining is if BA outsourced it to another operator in their behalf.... With only one A318 left it is nearly gone anyway.
Either Titan could operate the whole route for them, with the two A318's.... and then a CS100 operator could be sourced to take over with a non stop operation..... Maybe someone like Privat Air, who specialize in this premium market already.

Andy33 wrote:

It's difficult to see who would want to lease or spot-hire a shorthaul A318 in Western Europe, apart from Air France, but there's definitely a market for 32-seat all business planes for executive charter.

PM & D Royals when the Voyager is too big and a regular business jet is too small for the trip?

I regularly see and it's been raised in this thread about a CS100 taking over from the A318 on the route and then being able make the route non stop in both directions, but as range isn't the limiting factor for the a318 on the route but ability to take of with enough fuel out of LCY would a CS100 really be able to take off from LCY with enough fuel to make JFK?

b747400erf wrote:

CRJ900 wrote:

A pity if they close LCY-JFK now that the CS100 is certified for LCY. I think maybe a 20J/25Y-configured CS100 would be a nice option LCY-JFK non-stop. They'll have to clear immigration at JFK but they'll save 60-90 minutes by flying non-stop westbound instead of stopping at SNN. And the aircraft can serve other select destinations too, DME, LCA etc.

Another airline should give it a go, either a British or American airline. Although continued uncertainty of financial markets after Brexit might make this a money losing route even if a C-series can get better economics.

That's true. Are the CS300 certified for LCY? Because then we could see Delta possibly start the service with the CS300 once they get them. Hopefully they wouldn't do all business, that way more people would fly it.

LAX772LR wrote:

Be interesting to see what becomes of the BA001/002 flight numbers if this ends.

Personally, I wished they'd retired them in 2003 in honor of Concorde. Wonder what they'll do now: another JFK service?

If they use these numbers. I'd expect it would be JFK/LHR.

TheGeordielad wrote:

I believe in a year or 2 this service will be discontinued just because I've heard load factors aren't that good.

That's true, how many people could or would spend $32,000 on a seat for a 6hr flight.

mwhcvt wrote:

I regularly see and it's been raised in this thread about a CS100 taking over from the A318 on the route and then being able make the route non stop in both directions, but as range isn't the limiting factor for the a318 on the route but ability to take of with enough fuel out of LCY would a CS100 really be able to take off from LCY with enough fuel to make JFK?

Bombardier demonstrated the CS100 flying LCY-JFK earlier this year.

Crossrail will remove much of the justification for this service once it opens.

Dave

Menzenski wrote:

mwhcvt wrote:

I regularly see and it's been raised in this thread about a CS100 taking over from the A318 on the route and then being able make the route non stop in both directions, but as range isn't the limiting factor for the a318 on the route but ability to take of with enough fuel out of LCY would a CS100 really be able to take off from LCY with enough fuel to make JFK?

Bombardier demonstrated the CS100 flying LCY-JFK earlier this year.

Impressive, makes you wonder just how short the babybus is taking off from LCY on fuel if they fuelled to the max possible for taking off on that runway

Never say never.

However there is a listing of BA aircraft currently scheduled for repainting this year and next year in the current 'BA LHR Paint Shop' thread. Listed as 20th and last of those aircraft scheduled to be repainted at DUB this year is 318 G-EUNA. So it is a reasonably safe assumption to say that today BA are not considering discontinuing their BA001/02 LCY JFK rotation. But, of course, everything could change tomorrow.

However on this evidence my GUESS is that G-EUNA, effectively backed up by 'NB, will be operating LCY-SNN-JFK-LCY for several years yet.

Well, certainly until 2020, a few months after Crossrail/Elizabeth Line opens in 2019. At that point BA will find out if there is enough leakage of passengers currently using LCY-JFK to flights from LHR to make the route non-viable. Of course the leakage could be towards the LCY-JFK service instead, but the almost hourly AA/BA JV service out of LHR is a powerful draw.

For Crossrail, there is still the issue of track access to be sorted out with HAL. Even then, it is due to terminate at T4 and not T5. Both issues are to protect the lucrative Heathrow Express!

Andy33 wrote:

Well, certainly until 2020, a few months after Crossrail/Elizabeth Line opens in 2019. At that point BA will find out if there is enough leakage of passengers currently using LCY-JFK to flights from LHR to make the route non-viable. Of course the leakage could be towards the LCY-JFK service instead, but the almost hourly AA/BA JV service out of LHR is a powerful draw.

.......yes, 'Crossrail' will have an impact on LCY; but at present there is the small problem that currently LCY will not have a railway station on 'Crossrail/ 'ElizabethLine'. The original plans (deliberately?) excluded a rail station @ LCY, firstly because under Mayor Johnsons 'Boris island' proposal; local politicians wanted LCY closed for housing expansion, and under the current mayor TfL wants LCY themselves to fund the new station. A year ago, LCY said they will self-fund the new station, but they say TfL has refused planning permission; which they deny, saying that LCY had not submitted a 'feasibility study'.

I think there is still strong local political thinking that LCY should be closed altogether.

Don't know what the latest news is, but I doubt when 'Crossrail' opens LCY will be served. Rail users transferring from LCY to LHR will have to change trains at Canary Wharf I guess, probably until the mid 2020's....... train journey time from Canary Wharf to LHR is projected at 40 minutes

Any Londoners know the latest on this ?

vv701 wrote:

.

However on this evidence my GUESS is that G-EUNA, effectively backed up by 'NB, will be operating LCY-SNN-JFK-LCY for several years yet.

That sounds like BA have a special deal with Titan to lease 'NB' when required, would that be the case, or are we simply talking about normal ad-hoc cover when required ?

Clydenairways wrote:

The only way i can see this route remaining is if BA outsourced it to another operator in their behalf.... With only one A318 left it is nearly gone anyway. Either Titan could operate the whole route for them, with the two A318's.... and then a CS100 operator could be sourced to take over with a non stop operation..... Maybe someone like Privat Air, who specialize in this premium market already.

.......struggling to think of another LCY operator with a large Bombardier fleet who might look at flying a CS100 for BA, who flies with and for plenty of other airlines and operates in the 'Avios' programme !!! (Sarcasm detectors switched on please ?)

'FlyB........ no wait......!!!

SelseyBill wrote:

.......yes, 'Crossrail' will have an impact on LCY; but at present there is the small problem that currently LCY will not have a railway station on 'Crossrail/ 'ElizabethLine'.

Don't know what the latest news is, but I doubt when 'Crossrail' opens LCY will be served. Rail users transferring from LCY to LHR will have to change trains at Canary Wharf I guess, probably until the mid 2020's....... train journey time from Canary Wharf to LHR is projected at 40 minutes

That's not a problem, as LCY-LHR transfers aren't really that relevant of a market. Someone arriving at LCY to connect to go to New York (how many connections are there on BA1/2, anyway?) will have a choice of, almost literally, every other European gateway to connect to New York (or nonstops from their own home city).

The point is that Crossrail would make LHR more convenient for people who are in parts of London where LCY is currently more convenient. Those folks aren't starting/ending their trip at LCY, so there's no need for the train to directly serve LCY for it to have an effect on the LCY-JFK market.

JannEejit wrote:

That sounds like BA have a special deal with Titan to lease 'NB' when required, would that be the case, or are we simply talking about normal ad-hoc cover when required ?

Titan is usually BA's first port of call for additional capacity. The frequency and length of routine maintenance of 'NA is totally predictable. So to me it would be surprising if BA did not contract to wet lease 'NB from Titan well in advance to cover planned, routine maintenance. Equally it is likely that Titan would welcome such a contract. After all when flown in the current all-J configuration there is little if any alternative to ad hoc charters for 'NB from any other source.

Cover for unscheduled maintenance and other problems impacting 'NA would be a different matter. But it is likely that Titan would give BA priority wherever 'NB was needed and available. Note here that a significant source of ad hoc work for 'NB would likely be from Premier League and other major sports teams. Their demand would likely be higher at weekends when LCY is closed and BA001/02 is not operating.

vv701 wrote:

JannEejit wrote:

.
Cover for unscheduled maintenance and other problems impacting 'NA would be a different matter. But it is likely that Titan would give BA priority wherever 'NB was needed and available. .

Cover for unscheduled maintenance would be pretty much impossible / pointless for Titan. Whilst they could soon probably get the a/c and crew to LCY to operate an outbound - they would have no crew in JFK to operate the more popular return service until the following day

APYu wrote:

vv701 wrote:

JannEejit wrote:

.
Cover for unscheduled maintenance and other problems impacting 'NA would be a different matter. But it is likely that Titan would give BA priority wherever 'NB was needed and available. .

Cover for unscheduled maintenance would be pretty much impossible / pointless for Titan. Whilst they could soon probably get the a/c and crew to LCY to operate an outbound - they would have no crew in JFK to operate the more popular return service until the following day

Even BA keeps the "B" plane as a spare plane, if "A" goes tech in JFK, they will have to wait for the "B" to fly all the way from LCY to cover the return service.
For the crews, some of them can be dead head to JFK onboard the flight to JFK and do the return service.
For the worst case, I believe it is not that difficult to rebook those passangers into other BA's flights unless it happened during the peak traveling period.

"NB" has been at LHR since last weekend, albeit in an all white scheme.
I suspect it is because if BA need it very quickly , they can use the relevant Qualified BA flight crew from LHR as per usual.
I also wonder if "NB" was STN based whether Titan would have the relevant crew to fly into LCY.
OTH, if Titan has work for the 318, it would be well planned in advance. So they could easily send a crew from STN to LHR to pick up the aircraft.