Galwayman wrote:

Suspect these flights will be mainly Americans , irish travellers aren't half as keen on the US as US tourists are on visiting Ireland /EU

Irish travellers The US has almost the same number of Irish travellers as Ireland. Also their preferred method of transportation is on a horse, not on a plane.

Jetty wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

Suspect these flights will be mainly Americans , irish travellers aren't half as keen on the US as US tourists are on visiting Ireland /EU

Irish travellers The US has almost the same number of Irish travellers as Ireland. Also their preferred method of transportation is on a horse, not on a plane.

lol love it!!

WNflyer1523 wrote:

Considering the range of the A321, I’m assuming that the new destinations would be in the northeast/Mid Atlantic. What are your thoughts? My predictions:
ISP - Possible
MHT - Possible
SWF - Possible
PIT - Possible
BUF - More possible
PVD - More possible
And I’m not sure what the other 4 would be.

What about SYR? Outside the Boston area Syracuse has the next largest Irish population and an even better catchment area with even MORE Irish people.

Hopefully Detroit is one of these cities.

Is there any Latin American demand for EI?

Channex757 wrote:

The average European would fly the Atlantic on the wing of a biplane if the fare was cheap enough

Winner of the most true comment - and funniest - in this whole thread!

N717TW wrote:

I agree. This is about connecting smaller US/Canadian markets to UK regions and the continent plus avoiding LHR. In this case, DUB is becoming IAG's poor mans choice to AMS. There are two other questions that IAG has to navigate: Brexit and LHR expansion. Brexit might mean IAG wants/needs to stop using the UK as a hub between North America and the EU (particularly if IAG has to divest BA down to 49%) whereas LHR expansion might mean that this is all moot.

You are correct that the design of the Aer Lingus model is to connect the regional UK destinations to the USA via Dublin. I hardly think DUB is a poor man's choice to AMS. It's extremely easy to connect in Dublin as the airport is not enormous. That's a win. Dublin also has US Preclearance which is another win.

Rest assured that aviation rights will be a priority for the UK when it comes to Brexit. The UK economy would fall over without air service so that will be a priority. LHR expansion? That is still many years away indeed. Even the compulsory purchase of the land and having the people leave hasn't started yet, so that is going to be far into the 2020s before anything happens there. One new runway at LHR will be filled up pretty quickly too, so it's not really going to help all that much.

N717TW wrote:

Generally (with limited exceptions) airlines have been considered national assets and therefore must be in domestic hands if not nationalized outright. The EU has set the limit of non-domestic (in this case, non-EU) ownership at 49%. That's the majority view in nations where foreign investment but not ownership is allowed. The US sets that number at 25%. I am assuming that the UK would maintain the 49% rule although they could bring it down lower or they could wipe it away all together and allow for total foreign ownership. IAG, parent of BA, is a Spanish company and therefore won't be able to qualify as a domestic company going forward. N.B. this impacts VS too; EasyJet has the reverse problem where they would become a foreign carrier in the EU and has been moving to establish an Austrian division that can take on the job of operating the intra-EU flights.

The US also allows 49% ownership of airlines by a foreign carrier under the US-EU Open Skies agreement. However, the United States limits the foreign carrier to 25% of voting rights. A neat little compromise to appease the so called land of the free.

keesje wrote:

E.g. Hartfort is a typical airport people prefer over going into BOS, JFK hubs because of traffic time/ uncertainty.

Hartford (BDL) generally isn't preferred unless it's quite a bit closer for the traveler, even with the traffic one almost inevitably encounters on the way to JFK or BOS; the added time for a connection on the way almost invariably makes the journey longer if a non-stop is available from JFK (more likely) or BOS. And that doesn't address the greater schedule choices which are likely to be available from the larger airports as well.

parapente wrote:

1.I appreciate that 4,200nm is the advertised max (still air) range and in reality all things are not equal.However 3,200 is a very large 'chunk' less.Is that based on an accepted reduction factor that applies across most A/c and their published ranges?

3,200 nm might be too low but winds westbound across the North Atlantic, particularly in winter, can seriously reduce the achievable range. And AFAIK the range for the A321LR is 4,000 nm (from Airbus's own marketing materials), not 4,200.

r2rho wrote:

I have to disagree about Africa - MAD is the best placed IAG hub for that. They can cover all but the southernmost part of the continent with A32x from there, and that should be developed accordingly.

MAD has the best location of the IAG hubs (except perhaps BCN) for connections to Africa, but it's not especially well-placed compared to other European hubs and cultural/business/historical ties between Spain and most of Africa are fairly weak. For IAG, I think it's best to concentrate Africa service at LHR given the strong demand and high yields which can be achieved.

raylee67 wrote:

DUB's pre-clearance facilities will be a competitive advantage over KEF.

I'm not convinced DUB pre-clearance is much of a competitive advantage given the longer minimum connection times required. Mainly it opens up some potential markets with limited CBP facilities on the U.S. side.

par13del wrote:

I accept that the A321 is a wider narrow body a/c than the 757, so will the a/c now change preferences and open up new travel possibilities for non-charter carriers who are the primary users of narrow body a/c on long distance flights?

I don't think the small difference in cabin width makes any difference in purchase decisions; what narrowbody aircraft with transatlantic range have done is to enable more choices for passengers in terms of routes, carriers, and prices. Business travelers will GLADLY take a transatlantic non-stop in a lie-flat seat on a 757 or A321LR over a connection at LHR/FRA/CDG/AMS.

ScottB wrote:

keesje wrote:

E.g. Hartfort is a typical airport people prefer over going into BOS, JFK hubs because of traffic time/ uncertainty.

Hartford (BDL) generally isn't preferred unless it's quite a bit closer for the traveler, even with the traffic one almost inevitably encounters on the way to JFK or BOS; the added time for a connection on the way almost invariably makes the journey longer if a non-stop is available from JFK (more likely) or BOS. And that doesn't address the greater schedule choices which are likely to be available from the larger airports as well.

parapente wrote:

1.I appreciate that 4,200nm is the advertised max (still air) range and in reality all things are not equal.However 3,200 is a very large 'chunk' less.Is that based on an accepted reduction factor that applies across most A/c and their published ranges?

3,200 nm might be too low but winds westbound across the North Atlantic, particularly in winter, can seriously reduce the achievable range. And AFAIK the range for the A321LR is 4,000 nm (from Airbus's own marketing materials), not 4,200.

r2rho wrote:

I have to disagree about Africa - MAD is the best placed IAG hub for that. They can cover all but the southernmost part of the continent with A32x from there, and that should be developed accordingly.

MAD has the best location of the IAG hubs (except perhaps BCN) for connections to Africa, but it's not especially well-placed compared to other European hubs and cultural/business/historical ties between Spain and most of Africa are fairly weak. For IAG, I think it's best to concentrate Africa service at LHR given the strong demand and high yields which can be achieved.

raylee67 wrote:

DUB's pre-clearance facilities will be a competitive advantage over KEF.

I'm not convinced DUB pre-clearance is much of a competitive advantage given the longer minimum connection times required. Mainly it opens up some potential markets with limited CBP facilities on the U.S. side.

par13del wrote:

I accept that the A321 is a wider narrow body a/c than the 757, so will the a/c now change preferences and open up new travel possibilities for non-charter carriers who are the primary users of narrow body a/c on long distance flights?

I don't think the small difference in cabin width makes any difference in purchase decisions; what narrowbody aircraft with transatlantic range have done is to enable more choices for passengers in terms of routes, carriers, and prices. Business travelers will GLADLY take a transatlantic non-stop in a lie-flat seat on a 757 or A321LR over a connection at LHR/FRA/CDG/AMS.[/

Bcn better than Mad to connect Africa ? Any reasons why? I do believe its exactly the opposite.

gatibosgru wrote:

Is there any Latin American demand for EI?

None, more chance of a new EI destination in Asia than Latin America.

Any new news of where the ten new cities?

What will be interesting for me is if IAG/EI sees the flexibility of A321LR and uses them on a European sector during the TATL layover in DUB,

Could we see DTW-DUB-MUC, MSP-DUB-DUS, BWI-DUB-BHX, IAD-DUB-BRU or PIT-DUB-AMS as examples, offering some new and unique 1-stop opportunities through Dublin ?

par13del wrote:

Based on A.Net wisdom, Europeans do not like to fly TATL on narrow body a/c, the USA carriers who are using 757's are mostly USA originating traffic.

Those first four words should probably reveal the flaw in this assessment.

SelseyBill wrote:

What will be interesting for me is if IAG/EI sees the flexibility of A321LR and uses them on a European sector during the TATL layover in DUB,

Could we see DTW-DUB-MUC, MSP-DUB-DUS, BWI-DUB-BHX, IAD-DUB-BRU or PIT-DUB-AMS as examples, offering some new and unique 1-stop opportunities through Dublin ?

Funny you should say that because at the last route announcement this very idea was touted by management. Aer Lingus see potential for a seamless product on their network, particularly in Business Class from Europe to North America via Dublin and think the A321LR could help provide that on certain routes which demand it, namely London, Paris or Amsterdam. It would give them a JetBlue Mint style product aimed at those wanting and willing to pay for a full service experience from start to finish.

At the same time they have been evaluating a premium offering on the rest of the short haul fleet, empty middle seat, free meals/drinks, lounge access and all the frills you can expect of a basic euro business class these days. This would be independent of the A321LR product which would remain configured for long haul.

Would YUL now be of no interest to EI with these A321LR's, with AC's new DUB - YUL service?

Cheers,

C.

I bet the goal is to add in less than daily service to markets that have no or little European service. Low cost to operate markets that will throw out large subsidies seems particularly attractive. Get in those cities before WOW and other LCC can.

Love to see them here in Manchester (New Hampshire) few times a week would be nice. International service without the expensive infrastructure to handle the flight.

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

I bet the goal is to add in less than daily service to markets that have no or little European service. Low cost to operate markets that will throw out large subsidies seems particularly attractive. Get in those cities before WOW and other LCC can.

Just like they did with Bradley, they were in there before Norwegian and appear to be doing very well. Aer Lingus will certainly be looking to replicate this success but will also use the A321LR to explore more obvious east coast choices and increase frequencies on existing routes to free up A330s for other cities further afield like Denver, Houston or Dallas.

I don't think there's much chance of SNN getting too many extra flights; there was a call for that within the past few days and EI ruled it out pretty quickly.

Sources within EI (and indeed Willie Walsh himself) have alluded to as many as 20 A321LRs operated by EI, but here's the kicker ... not all may necessarily be operated from DUB ... and, not all may be operated by EI (even those carrying EI colours). There are two factors to consider here:
- IAG/EI want to wring more concessions from IALPA, the Irish Airline Pilots Association.
- Even moreso, they want to wring more concessions from the DAA, Dublin Airport's operator. Relations between the two have soured in recent years. It should also be borne in mind that EI's main base, T2 at Dublin, is quite restricting of growth; it has very little space for expansion and on top of that the location of T2 causes a lot of congestion. It's not unknown for flights which have landed to spend 30 mins plus on the ground before getting a gate - not good for a hub operation.

SelseyBill wrote:

What will be interesting for me is if IAG/EI sees the flexibility of A321LR and uses them on a European sector during the TATL layover in DUB,

Could we see DTW-DUB-MUC, MSP-DUB-DUS, BWI-DUB-BHX, IAD-DUB-BRU or PIT-DUB-AMS as examples, offering some new and unique 1-stop opportunities through Dublin ?

I doubt we will see them on anything substanitial if at all. Maybe 2-3 key European markets. The feeder service is working well for EI. I think we will see a Y+/J light product on EI shorthaul before rumors being ''touted''.

Even 12 seems little - when DUB gets its 2nd parallel runway and T3 (but only then, as current congestion makes it impossible), IAG can make it its TATL hub and flood it with A321LRs linking up many "secondary" cities on both sides of the Atlantic. The expanded DUB will effectively become LHR's 3rd runway.

WNflyer1523 wrote:

Considering the range of the A321, I’m assuming that the new destinations would be in the northeast/Mid Atlantic. What are your thoughts? My predictions:
ISP - Possible
MHT - Possible
SWF - Possible
PIT - Possible
BUF - More possible
PVD - More possible
And I’m not sure what the other 4 would be.

I would love to see BUF, which might draw from the Toronto area... it's a very convenient alternate for destinations to the US and sometimes south, but not TATL. A direct flight to a European hub would open up a lot of options.

Also (more generally) Dublin is a huge potential draw for people who want to connect and stop over. EI should encourage that, much like Icelandair is doing.

r2rho wrote:

Even 12 seems little - when DUB gets its 2nd parallel runway and T3 (but only then, as current congestion makes it impossible), IAG can make it its TATL hub and flood it with A321LRs linking up many "secondary" cities on both sides of the Atlantic. The expanded DUB will effectively become LHR's 3rd runway.

Will it? Although IAG make up a large proporton of Heathrows flight they aren't the only carrier at LHR.

stratocruiser wrote:

I doubt very much if you will ever see EI operating to Dakar, Khartoum, Kabul or even Lagos! Indeed the market from Ireland would probably support very few if any African or Middle Eastern/Western Asian destinations. I think IAG's main aim with these aircraft will be to offer flights to new niche destinations in North America currently unserved by transatlantic flights, but which would have the potential to generate enough transit traffic to the UK and Europe to supplement any O&D traffic and fill an A321. Will be very interesting to see how this pans out!

Couldn't agree more... After all, that's what IAG said they were buying EI for....

N717TW wrote:

I agree. This is about connecting smaller US/Canadian markets to UK regions and the continent plus avoiding LHR. In this case, DUB is becoming IAG's poor mans choice to AMS.

Maybe poor but more efficient. Doesn't matter where in the UK... if you fly to the US connecting in AMS, your are flying in the wrong direction for the first hop. And then back over the UK enroute to your destination.

N717TW wrote:

There are two other questions that IAG has to navigate: Brexit and LHR expansion. Brexit might mean IAG wants/needs to stop using the UK as a hub between North America and the EU (particularly if IAG has to divest BA down to 49%) whereas LHR expansion might mean that this is all moot.

That's already the case. IAG only owns 49% of BA. At least 49% of voting-rights shares in BA. The other 51% is owned by a British trustee. That's how IAG could be sure BA is always considered British. BTW, the same applies to IB. I'm not sure the same procedure were put in place when buying EI
About the two "issues", let's start with the most clear one: LHR. It ain't happening. Not for the foreseable future.
Then Brexit... that's closer but we don't know what will happen for sure but might have an impact on.... (read below)

kaitak wrote:

the objective is to build hubbing through Dublin - "the DubHub", so to speak!

But the problem is the DubHub could be affected by the Brexit outcome. Right now, DUB T2 is built around 2 domestic flights, a handful of CTA (read British) flights, another handful of morning US flights, a majority of Schengen (EU and not-EU) flghts and what we can call "other".

If there is suddenly (read 2019-2020) a need to perform inmigration controls between the Republic or Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain, for sure the lay-out of T2 will have to be rearranged. That would mean inbound flights from the UK would need passengers clearing inmigration upon arrival. If connecting, these ones might bypass inmigration but might be forced to reclear security screening should the EU rule that a UK-cleared passanger is not secure enough.

Even trickier... If the Common Travel Area is no more and Ireland joins Schengen, passengers from this area could simply deplane directly to the departures lounge and follow their path to the onward flight. Just a small number of gates would need to be inmigration-capable. UK-inbound passengers couldn't mix in, unless going though Irish-Schengen inmigration.

Or Ireland could choose to remain outside "any area" and treating all inbound flights as international, passengers subject to passport control to exit the airport doors and bypassing it for connecting. But connecting passengers from certain flights would need to (re-)clear security if the country of origin does not meet EU standards.

The DubHub depends on how easy it is to connect through it.... and that relies A LOT on the UK-EI border.

kaitak wrote:

the objective is to build hubbing through Dublin - "the DubHub", so to speak!

But the problem is the DubHub could be affected by the Brexit outcome. Right now, DUB T2 is built around 0 domestic flights, a handful of CTA (read British) flights, another handful of morning US flights, a majority of Schengen (EU and not-EU) flghts and what we can call "other".

If there is suddenly (read 2019-2020) a need to perform inmigration controls between the Republic or Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain, for sure the lay-out of T2 will have to be rearranged. That would mean inbound flights from the UK would need passengers clearing inmigration upon arrival. If connecting, these ones might bypass inmigration but might be forced to reclear security screening should the EU rule that a UK-cleared passanger is not secure enough.

Even trickier... If the Common Travel Area is no more and Ireland joins Schengen, passengers from this area could simply deplane directly to the departures lounge and follow their path to the onward flight. Just a small number of gates would need to be inmigration-capable. UK-inbound passengers couldn't mix in, unless going though Irish-Schengen inmigration.

Or Ireland could choose to remain outside "any area" and treating all inbound flights as international, passengers subject to passport control to exit the airport doors and bypassing it for connecting. But connecting passengers from certain flights would need to (re-)clear security if the country of origin does not meet EU standards.

The DubHub depends on how easy it is to connect through it.... and that relies A LOT on the UK-EI border.[/quote]

UK passengers already clear immigration at DUB despite the CTA and have for the last 20 years while all connections passengers clear immigration followed by security (security been removed for some this year). Schengen won't happen for Ireland at all.

Aisak wrote:

If there is suddenly (read 2019-2020) a need to perform inmigration controls between the Republic or Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain, for sure the lay-out of T2 will have to be rearranged. That would mean inbound flights from the UK would need passengers clearing inmigration upon arrival. If connecting, these ones might bypass inmigration but might be forced to reclear security screening should the EU rule that a UK-cleared passanger is not secure enough.

.

That is already in place. All flights arriving into T2 from the CTA area must go through immigration controls by default. The majority just show their passports with the rest showing valid photo ID to prove they are Irish/British. So nothing would change. Transit would not be an issue either. As for Ireland joining Schengen it wont happen the way things are going. Its less and less attractive to many. Counter crime / terror issues has put that to bed at least for now. Recently a rule came into place that all passports must be scanned from all flights including EU flights rather then just look at them.

I highly doubt any country with a Schengen opt out would ever voluntarily choose to join Schengen. Plus Ireland will always value the CTA over Schengen and the UK has no incentive to end the CTA either. There will be plenty of problems due to Brexit but air travel between Ireland and the UK probably won't be one of them. Now the land border between Ireland and Northern Ireland is a completely different story.

There’s already a legally binding agreement from the UK that the CTA will continue post Brexit and there will be no hard border.

HTCone wrote:

There’s already a legally binding agreement from the UK that the CTA will continue post Brexit and there will be no hard border.

The promise that there won't be a hard border isnt actually a hard promise; it is (according to the UK) contingent on other matters, but that's an issue for another forum!

It's rumoured on another thread that some EI announcements are forthcoming. I think that PIT is one city that it very likely; DEN is also expected to be announced, along with another A330-200.

Aisak wrote:

Or Ireland could choose to remain outside "any area" and treating all inbound flights as international, passengers subject to passport control to exit the airport doors and bypassing it for connecting. But connecting passengers from certain flights would need to (re-)clear security if the country of origin does not meet EU standards.

The DubHub depends on how easy it is to connect through it.... and that relies A LOT on the UK-EI border.

This is pretty much how it is now. Everyone arriving in Dublin - T1 and T2 - has to go through immigration and passport control. I've never connected at Dublin, but I hear the experience is pretty straightforward.

The connections between Ireland and the UK in T2 are already fine and will remain the same after Brexit. You choice of words regarding a "handful" of flights from the UK amused me, considering Aer Lingus fly 12 times daily to LHR, 5 times daily to LGW, 5 times daily to BHX, 5 times daily to MAN, 2 times daily to BRS, 4 times daily to EDI and 3 times daily to GLA. Like a lot of people, you seem to think Aer Lingus is smaller than it actually is

It's interesting that, in theory, you could now have airlines operating only A320s that can serve large areas of the world with both long and short-haul flights. Perhaps this will allow smaller and low-cost airlines like Easyjet, Air Asia and Air Arabia to cover a much larger area.

ScottB wrote:

parapente wrote:

1.I appreciate that 4,200nm is the advertised max (still air) range and in reality all things are not equal.However 3,200 is a very large 'chunk' less.Is that based on an accepted reduction factor that applies across most A/c and their published ranges?

3,200 nm might be too low but winds westbound across the North Atlantic, particularly in winter, can seriously reduce the achievable range. And AFAIK the range for the A321LR is 4,000 nm (from Airbus's own marketing materials), not 4,200.

Everyone was shouting from the rafters when WW flew a normal 321NEO from KEF-LAX @ 3749NM recently and now we are saying knock off 1000NM for Trans-Atlantic westbound on the LR version?? The maths here isn't adding up... I would suggest that the range will be closer to 3600NM maybe even 3700NM with 204pax.

Aisak wrote:

N717TW wrote:

There are two other questions that IAG has to navigate: Brexit and LHR expansion. Brexit might mean IAG wants/needs to stop using the UK as a hub between North America and the EU (particularly if IAG has to divest BA down to 49%) whereas LHR expansion might mean that this is all moot.

That's already the case. IAG only owns 49% of BA. At least 49% of voting-rights shares in BA. The other 51% is owned by a British trustee. That's how IAG could be sure BA is always considered British. BTW, the same applies to IB. I'm not sure the same procedure were put in place when buying EI
About the two "issues", let's start with the most clear one: LHR. It ain't happening. Not for the foreseable future.
Then Brexit... that's closer but we don't know what will happen for sure but might have an impact on....

While true, IAG (as a Spanish company) only owns 49% of BA, with 51% in a British trust, the arrangement is a bit of a fiction as IAG retains 100% economic control over the company as an EU concern. This is the same arrangement AF-KL have with AF and KL and LH Group has with LX and OS. However, its unclear if that arrangement can continue post-Brexit. Unless some other arrangement is negotiated, under current UK rules its likely that IAG can not have control over BA and it becomes similar to the VS-DL partnership where DL has both 49% ownership and economic interest in the company (side note: AF-KL would need to divest their interest in VS as well...and there were notes in the transfer that AF-KL reserved Brexit sell back rights with the Virgin Group).

Therefore, sans EU ownership/control agreements being negotiated, IAG would probably want to flow EU-North America traffic over DUB to avoid having to give up a percentage of the revenue.

Now on a separate note: Moving traffic over DUB is definitely preferable than LHR in most situations for IAG given the costs and taxes at LHR. About 2 weeks ago I was pricing tickets to both France and Portugal and anything involving LHR carried huge surcharges. Given that its hard to pass on fees in a transit-only situation without making yourself less desirable (to KLM In particular), you could see that IAG/BA/AA was absorbing a significant percentage of the fees (on days when they weren't clearly trying to push you through MAD. or DUB). As a result, you can only assume that IAG would much prefer moving network/transfer traffic over DUB than LHR.

you can only assume that IAG would much prefer moving network/transfer traffic over DUB than LHR.

My prediction is that - once DUB expansion happens - IAG would move most connecting traffic not dependend on London O&D to the "DubHub" particularly lower yielding and secondary routes, keeping LHR for London O&D, prime routes, and ad-hoc connection opportunities. And the A321LR can play a key role, opening up dozens of non-hub cities on both sides of the Atlantic.

DUB is in a perfect location and timing to become a major trans-Atlantic hub, and will complement LHR well in the IAG group. LHR flights can focus on premium connection traffic and O&D traffic, while other connection passengers are routed thru DUB. Besides DUB's location as the last stop in Europe before the ocean, thus everyone from anywhere in Europe would not need to backtrack if they connect thru DUB for trans-Atlantic, pre-clearance at DUB adds to its unique advantage over any airports in Europe. And then BREXIT is doing wonders to Dublin. It's the 3rd largest location where banks are considering to move their operations to, after Frankfurt and Paris. This will add demand to O&D traffic which will complement the connection demand. A321 is the perfect type to test things out.