winginit wrote:

David_itl wrote:

winginit wrote:

AA and BA are in a revenue sharing joint venture. Thus, AA's ORDMAN books are more or less completely open to BA, who have shared in the losses on the route. It seems not curious but clear that BA saw what a bloodbath ORDMAN was for the joint venture and have no interest in touching it. That's extremely telling as to how awful of a route ORD-MAN was.

Maybe AA need to look at why they needed to cut a route that survived for 32 years including a fair number of years of being one of a handful of year-round transatlantic routes out of ORD , Maybe it's because they put a pile of dog poo on the route compared to what other airlines are operating on other US routes to MAN and they had a very iffy on time performance. But given how close ORD and DTW are, it would be more logical for a route to that part of the USA went to a DL hub. Quite why AA/BA seem to be so keen to let other airlines take on the non-stop options out of MAN whilst they prefer passengers to route over DUB and LHR is a mystery to me.

Or maybe, just maybe, an entirely unprecedented move like, let’s say, the UK voting to exit the European Union, lead to the dramatic collapse of the GBP/USD exchange rate, which quickly torched a route that’s majority UK POS.

klm617 wrote:

For the most part though BA has really never done that much as far a secondary cities in the UK to the USA.

Because for the most part - those routes are crap - especially at these GBP/USD exchange rates.

I'm talking about through the 80's and 90's BA never really did much from MAN or PIK most of the international traffic there was carried by Laker and more than anything I think Manchester is more of a leisure market than it is a premium market hence the infrequency of the VS flights to places like BOS and LAX. Other than NYC, MCO and LAS can you find daily flights out of MAN to the USA.

klm617 wrote:

winginit wrote:

David_itl wrote:

So tha'ts the reason why Virgin is doing a 20% increase in capacity and United is putting 767s on in place of 757 because far fewer passengers are actually flying from the UK to the US.

Did I say far fewer passengers were actually flying from the UK to the US? I didn't, so let's please read carefully and use our literacy skills before putting words in my mouth. I said the UK vote to exit the European Union lead to the collapse of the GBP/USD exchange rate, which it did. For US3 airlines who need to convert their foreign revenue to USD, FX headwinds can cripple the RASM and thus the profitability of a route - especially one that leans UK PoS heavy like those in and out of MAN. Maybe I should have made that last bit more clear.

Boeing74741R wrote:

I must have missed all those swinging cuts to UK-US routes over the last 2 1/2 years, particularly out of MAN.

It always pays to check the facts first before jumping to conclusions based on assumptions.

Why yes, it would indeed seem as though you missed the sweeping MAN-US nonstop cuts again from US-based carriers who need to convert their GBP revenues to USD. Let's take a little look at US3 MAN-US nonstop capacity between 2016 (the vote) and today shall we? You know, 'check the facts'?



Oh my... that doesn't paint such a good picture does it? Might you even call those swinging cuts?

I'd expect better from A.net vets like the two of you.

To be far the Delta flights were replaces by VS flights so there was really no loss of capacity there.

Yes. You’re reinforcing my point. Delta’s capacity, which requires a currency conversion because they book their revenue in USD, was replaced with VS capacity booked in GBP. It helps hedge against the FX impact. For what I hope is the final time, I’m talking here predominantly about US based carriers who book their revenue in USD - like AA on ORDMAN.

winginit wrote:

Did I say far fewer passengers were actually flying from the UK to the US? I didn't, so let's please read carefully and use our literacy skills before putting words in my mouth. I said the UK vote to exit the European Union lead to the collapse of the GBP/USD exchange rate, which it did. For US3 airlines who need to convert their foreign revenue to USD, FX headwinds can cripple the RASM and thus the profitability of a route - especially one that leans UK PoS heavy like those in and out of MAN. Maybe I should have made that last bit more clear.

So, you'd agree that UA must be extremely stupid to put the 763 in place of 757 on EWR-MAN from late March before using 764s for 5 months in peak summer then instead of reverting back to 757 in winter, decide that 763 ops in winter will also take place. After all "For US3 airlines who need to convert their foreign revenue to USD, FX headwinds can cripple the RASM and thus the profitability of a route"l

What might VS/DL be thinking about doing at MAN?

The MAN-USA market is characterised by commercially marginal routes, the exceptions being JFK, EWR, LAS, MCO, ATL. The marginal routes are either currently served on a seasonal basis (such as LAX, SFO, BOS, SEA) as well as unserved and/or recently unserved (such as MIA, TPA, ORD, IAD). These lists are obviously not exhaustive.

VS/DL likely calculate that by bringing together a few elements, one of which is a properly organised synchronised and branded UK feed via connect airways, they can turn those commercially marginal routes into commercially strong ones at MAN.

The connect airways operation has to be more efficient than the legacy BE network. If not, there is no reason to believe it won’t continue to haemorrhage money making any plan more likely to fail. On this point, I suspect VS/DL calculate they can significantly streamline the inter UK network. A restructured network would likely offer less p2p services, particularly the commercially unattractive routes, but should still offer competitive timings and frequencies when compared with the alternatives of road and rail.

By way of indicative example, a SOU-NCL routing could be offered not as a direct service but as a stopping / transfer service via MAN if the stop / transfer at MAN could be handled effectively. This might permit the two sectors to handle a greater variety of passenger flows and therefore higher volumes / load factors (subject to equipment used) at a higher profitability.

A second element is international transfers. I don’t know the extent to which connect airways will operate a network into mainland Europe at MAN, but at this stage it seems unlikely that this will be a major part of the operation. I think VS/DL perceive the opportunity to connect India-USA traffic and perhaps in time others, such as South Africa - USA traffic over MAN. In time, this could create a virtuous circle for growing these markets.

A third element might be the input of EasyJet. I think EZY offer feed to VS at LGW via their worldwide by EasyJet product. I don’t know if this is also planned at MAN, but it is likely within their contemplation. Given EZY’s expansion objectives at MAN, this could supply a major support to VS (subject to overlapping of the connect airways network).

A fourth and perhaps more organic element is the recovery of surface and/or hub leakage. Passengers tend not to hub at US airports if it can be avoided due to the strict immigration procedures, associated time pressure and risk of missing onward connections. Offering more direct services from MAN at higher frequency and over the entire year mitigates this. Leakage to LHR is less of a problem if using VS services, but they will want to target O&D customers at MAN who use the BA shuttle to LHR, EI via DUB, LH via FRA or MUC. The position on transfers over AMS and CDG is less certain given the commercial ties that now exist so I don’t address this further for now.

A fifth element might be USPC, which to an extent removes the risks of hubbing at US airports.

I think this is what VS/DL could achieve at MAN, whether this is their plan and if so how far it goes who knows, but I think there is a blueprint for development here that may be a success.

David_itl wrote:

winginit wrote:

Did I say far fewer passengers were actually flying from the UK to the US? I didn't, so let's please read carefully and use our literacy skills before putting words in my mouth. I said the UK vote to exit the European Union lead to the collapse of the GBP/USD exchange rate, which it did. For US3 airlines who need to convert their foreign revenue to USD, FX headwinds can cripple the RASM and thus the profitability of a route - especially one that leans UK PoS heavy like those in and out of MAN. Maybe I should have made that last bit more clear.

So, you'd agree that UA must be extremely stupid to put the 763 in place of 757 on EWR-MAN from late March before using 764s for 5 months in peak summer then instead of reverting back to 757 in winter, decide that 763 ops in winter will also take place. After all "For US3 airlines who need to convert their foreign revenue to USD, FX headwinds can cripple the RASM and thus the profitability of a route"l

The issue for winginit is that he has a rather big hole in his argument.

Let’s start with the original MAN-ORD argument. Stating it was ‘obviously an awful route’, yes, because airlines often run ‘awful routes’ for 32 years.

The issue for AA wasn’t currency, it was the fact they ran the route into the ground. When the flight was cancelled 2 times out of 10, then significantly delayed for 7 of the 8 remaining trips out of 10, it’s a no brainier pax would jump ship. I mean, would you put up with that? Rather than fight, AA ran.

Then we go on to the whole ‘USB3 and the conversion rate’ argument.

The USB3 is UA, DL and AA.

UA-increasing capacity by a significant amount, both in the ‘good’ summer months and now also in the ‘leaner’ winter months. With this, there is a very significant increase in premium seats too. Where is their ‘obvious FX issue?’

DL- part owns VS, profit shares on VS in the same way the BA/AA JV do, and guess what, VS are increasing significantly too. Be under no illusion. It may say ‘virgin atlantic’ on the side of the plane, but, it’s Delta running the show. And thus, DL seem to have no issue with their part of the profits amongst this whole ‘FX issue’.

Then we come to AA- they still run PHL so clearly no issue with their ‘FX issue there’. ORD was cut, but, had the issues described above.

So, ‘all of the USB3 having issues with Crap secondary U.K. routes’, but, 2 of the 3 are still expanding. 2/3rds. 66%. Whichever way you put it, still growing.

Yes, it’s easy to put up a graph and show how the USB3 have made ‘sweeping cuts’, and yes, there have been some cuts, there is no denying that. But, to use it in the way it was, it only shows a small part of the story and gives no context to the reasons behind it.

I think the whole crux behind this is that we don’t seem to be able to get past this image of MAN being some sort of yield and loads cesspool. Often those views are given by people who don’t know that place and/or have never been there either. There are also many that think MAN serves just Manchester. It’s far from it.

MAN has gotten to 28m pax. A regional, non capital city with no national hub carrier sharing the same lump of rock with one of the largest aviation cities in the world. Quite an achievement if you ask me. MAN has even managed to attract big, mainline carriers that even some Euro Capitals don’t have. Despite Brexit, MAN is still forecast for 9% growth in seats this summer in the face of such uncertainty.
For those who think loads and yields are, to phrase some on here ‘crap’, maybe you need to contact the airlines, as clearly you can see something they can’t and those airlines must have a huge flaw in their plan.

I would say most people are getting a bit too excited about VS and hubbing. The main element of this in terms of UK regional flying is Stobart air who want to consolidate and improve their exposure of regional flying along with cargo for expeditated freight. VS is a great partner for having a good booking platform along with a good distribution network. In addition they have both VS and Virgin train loyalty programs to tap in. For VS they can take some market share from IAG and also feed somewhat for MAN and LHR. The biggest benefit for VS at LHR it can use it for slot sitting and optimise schedules.
For DL their ultimate goal is plain try and convince AF-KL to merge their Hop-cityhopper ops with Flybe and create a pan FR-NL-uk regional carrier. This though is a dream. But at least they have a dream.

Some interesting points raised here.

Maybe the reason yields are so bad on TATL at MAN is because it's overstretching it's catchment area.

To the south when they are pitching to pick up passengers from the Birmingham conurbation (where there aren't any TATL connections) they are really competing with LHR, it's a similar journey time to each but the choice at LHR is far superior so anything offered has to be cheap. No doubt they have a certain amount of success picking off a part of the leisure market here.

It's a similar situation going north taking passengers that naturally by preference maybe would be departing from Glasgow and Edinburgh airports to do a long drive to get on a 1 stop connection they could have got through LHR.

Instead of forcing everyone through MAN onto an ageing 747 to JFK and ATL they would be better offering these routes on smaller frames out of each of the main Flybe hub.

No connectivity would be lost this way as all of these cities have similar routes in the Flybe portfolio and they could then pick off the high yielding O&D and business passengers in each city.

3AWM wrote:

Some interesting points raised here.

Maybe the reason yields are so bad on TATL at MAN is because it's overstretching it's catchment area.

To the south when they are pitching to pick up passengers from the Birmingham conurbation (where there aren't any TATL connections) they are really competing with LHR, it's a similar journey time to each but the choice at LHR is far superior so anything offered has to be cheap. No doubt they have a certain amount of success picking off a part of the leisure market here.

It's a similar situation going north taking passengers that naturally by preference maybe would be departing from Glasgow and Edinburgh airports to do a long drive to get on a 1 stop connection they could have got through LHR.

Instead of forcing everyone through MAN onto an ageing 747 to JFK and ATL they would be better offering these routes on smaller frames out of each of the main Flybe hub.

No connectivity would be lost this way as all of these cities have similar routes in the Flybe portfolio and they could then pick off the high yielding O&D and business passengers in each city.

I’m not sure this post reflects any of the key points made, and the bits I can understand make little commercial sense to me.

DobboDobbo wrote:

What might VS/DL be thinking about doing at MAN?

The MAN-USA market is characterised by commercially marginal routes, the exceptions being JFK, EWR, LAS, MCO, ATL. The marginal routes are either currently served on a seasonal basis (such as LAX, SFO, BOS, SEA) as well as unserved and/or recently unserved (such as MIA, TPA, ORD, IAD). These lists are obviously not exhaustive.

VS/DL likely calculate that by bringing together a few elements, one of which is a properly organised synchronised and branded UK feed via connect airways, they can turn those commercially marginal routes into commercially strong ones at MAN.

The connect airways operation has to be more efficient than the legacy BE network. If not, there is no reason to believe it won’t continue to haemorrhage money making any plan more likely to fail. On this point, I suspect VS/DL calculate they can significantly streamline the inter UK network. A restructured network would likely offer less p2p services, particularly the commercially unattractive routes, but should still offer competitive timings and frequencies when compared with the alternatives of road and rail.

By way of indicative example, a SOU-NCL routing could be offered not as a direct service but as a stopping / transfer service via MAN if the stop / transfer at MAN could be handled effectively. This might permit the two sectors to handle a greater variety of passenger flows and therefore higher volumes / load factors (subject to equipment used) at a higher profitability.

A second element is international transfers. I don’t know the extent to which connect airways will operate a network into mainland Europe at MAN, but at this stage it seems unlikely that this will be a major part of the operation. I think VS/DL perceive the opportunity to connect India-USA traffic and perhaps in time others, such as South Africa - USA traffic over MAN. In time, this could create a virtuous circle for growing these markets.

A third element might be the input of EasyJet. I think EZY offer feed to VS at LGW via their worldwide by EasyJet product. I don’t know if this is also planned at MAN, but it is likely within their contemplation. Given EZY’s expansion objectives at MAN, this could supply a major support to VS (subject to overlapping of the connect airways network).

A fourth and perhaps more organic element is the recovery of surface and/or hub leakage. Passengers tend not to hub at US airports if it can be avoided due to the strict immigration procedures, associated time pressure and risk of missing onward connections. Offering more direct services from MAN at higher frequency and over the entire year mitigates this. Leakage to LHR is less of a problem if using VS services, but they will want to target O&D customers at MAN who use the BA shuttle to LHR, EI via DUB, LH via FRA or MUC. The position on transfers over AMS and CDG is less certain given the commercial ties that now exist so I don’t address this further for now.

A fifth element might be USPC, which to an extent removes the risks of hubbing at US airports.

I think this is what VS/DL could achieve at MAN, whether this is their plan and if so how far it goes who knows, but I think there is a blueprint for development here that may be a success.

I would say that ATL is marginal as well. The only reason it gets served is because of the ATL hub and it's not even daily . MAN-ATL if it were a stand alone route wouldn't even be on anyone's radar like LAS, MCO and NYC are.

User001 wrote:

David_itl wrote:

winginit wrote:

Did I say far fewer passengers were actually flying from the UK to the US? I didn't, so let's please read carefully and use our literacy skills before putting words in my mouth. I said the UK vote to exit the European Union lead to the collapse of the GBP/USD exchange rate, which it did. For US3 airlines who need to convert their foreign revenue to USD, FX headwinds can cripple the RASM and thus the profitability of a route - especially one that leans UK PoS heavy like those in and out of MAN. Maybe I should have made that last bit more clear.

So, you'd agree that UA must be extremely stupid to put the 763 in place of 757 on EWR-MAN from late March before using 764s for 5 months in peak summer then instead of reverting back to 757 in winter, decide that 763 ops in winter will also take place. After all "For US3 airlines who need to convert their foreign revenue to USD, FX headwinds can cripple the RASM and thus the profitability of a route"l

The issue for winginit is that he has a rather big hole in his argument.

Let’s start with the original MAN-ORD argument. Stating it was ‘obviously an awful route’, yes, because airlines often run ‘awful routes’ for 32 years.

The issue for AA wasn’t currency, it was the fact they ran the route into the ground. When the flight was cancelled 2 times out of 10, then significantly delayed for 7 of the 8 remaining trips out of 10, it’s a no brainier pax would jump ship. I mean, would you put up with that? Rather than fight, AA ran.

Then we go on to the whole ‘USB3 and the conversion rate’ argument.

The USB3 is UA, DL and AA.

UA-increasing capacity by a significant amount, both in the ‘good’ summer months and now also in the ‘leaner’ winter months. With this, there is a very significant increase in premium seats too. Where is their ‘obvious FX issue?’

DL- part owns VS, profit shares on VS in the same way the BA/AA JV do, and guess what, VS are increasing significantly too. Be under no illusion. It may say ‘virgin atlantic’ on the side of the plane, but, it’s Delta running the show. And thus, DL seem to have no issue with their part of the profits amongst this whole ‘FX issue’.

Then we come to AA- they still run PHL so clearly no issue with their ‘FX issue there’. ORD was cut, but, had the issues described above.

So, ‘all of the USB3 having issues with Crap secondary U.K. routes’, but, 2 of the 3 are still expanding. 2/3rds. 66%. Whichever way you put it, still growing.

Yes, it’s easy to put up a graph and show how the USB3 have made ‘sweeping cuts’, and yes, there have been some cuts, there is no denying that. But, to use it in the way it was, it only shows a small part of the story and gives no context to the reasons behind it.

I think the whole crux behind this is that we don’t seem to be able to get past this image of MAN being some sort of yield and loads cesspool. Often those views are given by people who don’t know that place and/or have never been there either. There are also many that think MAN serves just Manchester. It’s far from it.

MAN has gotten to 28m pax. A regional, non capital city with no national hub carrier sharing the same lump of rock with one of the largest aviation cities in the world. Quite an achievement if you ask me. MAN has even managed to attract big, mainline carriers that even some Euro Capitals don’t have. Despite Brexit, MAN is still forecast for 9% growth in seats this summer in the face of such uncertainty.
For those who think loads and yields are, to phrase some on here ‘crap’, maybe you need to contact the airlines, as clearly you can see something they can’t and those airlines must have a huge flaw in their plan.

The Manchester image sounds quite a bit like the Detroit. image but if people on a.net keep repeating the same thing it tends to be seen as the truth.

User001 wrote:

I think the whole crux behind this is that we don’t seem to be able to get past this image of MAN being some sort of yield and loads cesspool. Often those views are given by people who don’t know that place and/or have never been there either. There are also many that think MAN serves just Manchester. It’s far from it.here ‘crap’, maybe you need to contact the airlines, as clearly you can see something they can’t and those airlines must have a huge flaw in their plan.

Sorry I was just responding to User01's post.

Really Virgin want to to up yield not traffic as a whole.

Maybe MAN is a yield cesspool because it attracts traffic from was outside the Manchester conurbation without offering a discernibly better product that that being offered going via LHR.

If they can spread those flights around a bit they can pick up high yielding traffic from all of the major UK cities rather than building a cheap and cheerful hub at MAN.

The connectivity would be the same as Flybe have similar route portfolios at BHX and EDI.

3AWM,

You have not read my post correctly at all, and in fact, the points you make reinforce the fact that many people really do not know the market and demographics at all, yet reply with a sense of authority on the subject.

I was pointing out MAN is NOT a yield cesspool, yet you seem to claim it is. Ever been to the U.K. at all?

And your thoughts on abandoning a hub concept and going for multi regional points, not only is it illogical, but why stop there, let’s abandon the LHR hub too, after all, as you point out yourself, even that’s going after the same pax as MAN, so why not ‘spread the wealth a little’.

Honestly, tough to combat that level of ignorance.

No need to resort to name calling just because others don't subscribe to your opinion or analysis.

You certainly claimed there was a perception that Manchester was a yield cesspool so there must be something to it.

Manchester has a geographical advantage meaning that it can draw passengers from a wider cachment areas including surrounding cities in the Midlands and Scotland but this advantage is already built into the exiting numbers. Passengers in Birmingham or Edinburgh can't logically be willing to pay a premium to fly from Manchester but they maybe would to fly a similar route from their local airport.

Likewise VS are already enjoying the benefits of a Flybe codeshare, it's difficult to see this providing a significant bump in premium passengers.

As far as Easyjet passengers goes, I can't really see this providing more than a nominal amount of feed and premium passengers certainly aren't self connecting through Easyjet.

It makes a lot more sense for VS to right-size their connections at MAN and start pursuing high yielding passengers out of other UK airports.

3AWM wrote:

User001 wrote:

I think the whole crux behind this is that we don’t seem to be able to get past this image of MAN being some sort of yield and loads cesspool. Often those views are given by people who don’t know that place and/or have never been there either. There are also many that think MAN serves just Manchester. It’s far from it.here ‘crap’, maybe you need to contact the airlines, as clearly you can see something they can’t and those airlines must have a huge flaw in their plan.

Sorry I was just responding to User01's post.

Really Virgin want to to up yield not traffic as a whole.

Maybe MAN is a yield cesspool because it attracts traffic from was outside the Manchester conurbation without offering a discernibly better product that that being offered going via LHR.

If they can spread those flights around a bit they can pick up high yielding traffic from all of the major UK cities rather than building a cheap and cheerful hub at MAN.

The connectivity would be the same as Flybe have similar route portfolios at BHX and EDI.

Ah - understood.

I don’t think anyone is saying MAN is a yield cesspit, and it would be a surprise if it was relative to EDI and BHX given the relative size and route portfolios of each. The perception at a global level is clearly a different question but I’d contextualise this with the recent comments from QF about how it’s LHR route has made profit for the first time in around a decade.

It’s easy to forget MAN is the principal international / intercontinental gateway for the cities of Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds and Sheffield and attracts a large slice of traffic from Birmingham, Newcastle, Scotland and North Wales. This is a major market and is likely why VS (and others) operate from and are building an enhanced presence at MAN, but not BHX or EDI. It is also worth noting that one of the stated aims of the connect airways operation is to optimise the legacy BE network to feed VS at MAN and LHR (hence my post at what might be possible).

It’s a nice idea to spread VS across the various BE bases, but it makes little to no commercial sense to do so and is contrary to the stated objective of the Scheme through which BE was purchased by Connect (hence why I don’t consider it as a realistic possibility).

I’ve seen references about the relative profitability of various BE bases, which may be what you are alluding to in the yield front, but I cannot find anything to corroborate those assertions and I’d treat them with a healthy degree of scepticism.

klm617 wrote:

DobboDobbo wrote:

What might VS/DL be thinking about doing at MAN?

The MAN-USA market is characterised by commercially marginal routes, the exceptions being JFK, EWR, LAS, MCO, ATL. The marginal routes are either currently served on a seasonal basis (such as LAX, SFO, BOS, SEA) as well as unserved and/or recently unserved (such as MIA, TPA, ORD, IAD). These lists are obviously not exhaustive.

VS/DL likely calculate that by bringing together a few elements, one of which is a properly organised synchronised and branded UK feed via connect airways, they can turn those commercially marginal routes into commercially strong ones at MAN.

The connect airways operation has to be more efficient than the legacy BE network. If not, there is no reason to believe it won’t continue to haemorrhage money making any plan more likely to fail. On this point, I suspect VS/DL calculate they can significantly streamline the inter UK network. A restructured network would likely offer less p2p services, particularly the commercially unattractive routes, but should still offer competitive timings and frequencies when compared with the alternatives of road and rail.

By way of indicative example, a SOU-NCL routing could be offered not as a direct service but as a stopping / transfer service via MAN if the stop / transfer at MAN could be handled effectively. This might permit the two sectors to handle a greater variety of passenger flows and therefore higher volumes / load factors (subject to equipment used) at a higher profitability.

A second element is international transfers. I don’t know the extent to which connect airways will operate a network into mainland Europe at MAN, but at this stage it seems unlikely that this will be a major part of the operation. I think VS/DL perceive the opportunity to connect India-USA traffic and perhaps in time others, such as South Africa - USA traffic over MAN. In time, this could create a virtuous circle for growing these markets.

A third element might be the input of EasyJet. I think EZY offer feed to VS at LGW via their worldwide by EasyJet product. I don’t know if this is also planned at MAN, but it is likely within their contemplation. Given EZY’s expansion objectives at MAN, this could supply a major support to VS (subject to overlapping of the connect airways network).

A fourth and perhaps more organic element is the recovery of surface and/or hub leakage. Passengers tend not to hub at US airports if it can be avoided due to the strict immigration procedures, associated time pressure and risk of missing onward connections. Offering more direct services from MAN at higher frequency and over the entire year mitigates this. Leakage to LHR is less of a problem if using VS services, but they will want to target O&D customers at MAN who use the BA shuttle to LHR, EI via DUB, LH via FRA or MUC. The position on transfers over AMS and CDG is less certain given the commercial ties that now exist so I don’t address this further for now.

A fifth element might be USPC, which to an extent removes the risks of hubbing at US airports.

I think this is what VS/DL could achieve at MAN, whether this is their plan and if so how far it goes who knows, but I think there is a blueprint for development here that may be a success.

I would say that ATL is marginal as well. The only reason it gets served is because of the ATL hub and it's not even daily . MAN-ATL if it were a stand alone route wouldn't even be on anyone's radar like LAS, MCO and NYC are.

I don’t get the obsession with DTW-MAN. They fly to only a small handful of US cities. And mostly tourist areas. They don’t even fly to ORD. They are NOT going to add DTW to their roster.

User001 wrote:

3AWM,

You have not read my post correctly at all, and in fact, the points you make reinforce the fact that many people really do not know the market and demographics at all, yet reply with a sense of authority on the subject.

I was pointing out MAN is NOT a yield cesspool, yet you seem to claim it is. Ever been to the U.K. at all?

Just to clarify I've been to Manchester many times and I live in Birmingham. I also fly frequently on business including a fair portion of TATL flights so I think I have reasonable amount of authority on my own purchasing behaviour as well as that of my friends and colleagues.

All the destinations I fly to are served by a combination of BHX and LHR. Where possible I will fly from BHX for convenience even if I have to pay more. I have only flown from MAN where it has been considerably cheaper or I have chosen it due to the availability of an award redemption ticket.

The journey time Birmingham to LHR and MAN is similar so there is no clear convenience advantage or disadvantage from flying from there. There is less choice in terms of connections and the airside experience is understandably inferior to LHR.

MAN serves a lot of holiday destinations that aren't served from BHX or LHR most notably Orlando but also a lot of Caribbean routes. I don't ever use these connections but I can see why the average holiday traveller from the Midlands would chose flying from MAN of LGW which is a lot less convenient to get to than LHR being on the wrong side of London.

As a snapshot of the kind of travel I do in the last 3 years I have been to San Diego once every year. The first 2 years I flew BA who had the clear advantage of having a direct flight an I got business class return tickets which cost around £3,500 both times. The vast majority of journeys I do with BA because of their very strong porfolio of direct US routes out of LHR.

Last year BA were quoting >£6 for the same so I booked with Virgin/Delta with a transfer in DTW which I got for £2k - to me the discount justified the inconvenience of a stop and not an amazing routing.

The point is MAN is never going offer a better choice than LHR and they only way they are going to get me to buy a premium ticket out of there is to undercut what is also offered out of LHR.

I see a departure from BHX with a stop at destination I could fly direct to from LHR as something that had similar value so I would pay in step with the BA connection for that.

Whilst those who live close enough to MAN may be keen to see more direct flights and frequencies (as it is convenient for them) I think that higher yielding segment of the market who are faced with travelling 2hrs or more to get there would rather in turn see local options more convenient to them.

This is certainly something that VS would have to offer me in order to differentiate from the choice of direct connections offered out of LHR and I would be willing to pay extra for it.

lavalampluva wrote:

klm617 wrote:

DobboDobbo wrote:

What might VS/DL be thinking about doing at MAN?

The MAN-USA market is characterised by commercially marginal routes, the exceptions being JFK, EWR, LAS, MCO, ATL. The marginal routes are either currently served on a seasonal basis (such as LAX, SFO, BOS, SEA) as well as unserved and/or recently unserved (such as MIA, TPA, ORD, IAD). These lists are obviously not exhaustive.

VS/DL likely calculate that by bringing together a few elements, one of which is a properly organised synchronised and branded UK feed via connect airways, they can turn those commercially marginal routes into commercially strong ones at MAN.

The connect airways operation has to be more efficient than the legacy BE network. If not, there is no reason to believe it won’t continue to haemorrhage money making any plan more likely to fail. On this point, I suspect VS/DL calculate they can significantly streamline the inter UK network. A restructured network would likely offer less p2p services, particularly the commercially unattractive routes, but should still offer competitive timings and frequencies when compared with the alternatives of road and rail.

By way of indicative example, a SOU-NCL routing could be offered not as a direct service but as a stopping / transfer service via MAN if the stop / transfer at MAN could be handled effectively. This might permit the two sectors to handle a greater variety of passenger flows and therefore higher volumes / load factors (subject to equipment used) at a higher profitability.

A second element is international transfers. I don’t know the extent to which connect airways will operate a network into mainland Europe at MAN, but at this stage it seems unlikely that this will be a major part of the operation. I think VS/DL perceive the opportunity to connect India-USA traffic and perhaps in time others, such as South Africa - USA traffic over MAN. In time, this could create a virtuous circle for growing these markets.

A third element might be the input of EasyJet. I think EZY offer feed to VS at LGW via their worldwide by EasyJet product. I don’t know if this is also planned at MAN, but it is likely within their contemplation. Given EZY’s expansion objectives at MAN, this could supply a major support to VS (subject to overlapping of the connect airways network).

A fourth and perhaps more organic element is the recovery of surface and/or hub leakage. Passengers tend not to hub at US airports if it can be avoided due to the strict immigration procedures, associated time pressure and risk of missing onward connections. Offering more direct services from MAN at higher frequency and over the entire year mitigates this. Leakage to LHR is less of a problem if using VS services, but they will want to target O&D customers at MAN who use the BA shuttle to LHR, EI via DUB, LH via FRA or MUC. The position on transfers over AMS and CDG is less certain given the commercial ties that now exist so I don’t address this further for now.

A fifth element might be USPC, which to an extent removes the risks of hubbing at US airports.

I think this is what VS/DL could achieve at MAN, whether this is their plan and if so how far it goes who knows, but I think there is a blueprint for development here that may be a success.

I would say that ATL is marginal as well. The only reason it gets served is because of the ATL hub and it's not even daily . MAN-ATL if it were a stand alone route wouldn't even be on anyone's radar like LAS, MCO and NYC are.

I don’t get the obsession with DTW-MAN. They fly to only a small handful of US cities. And mostly tourist areas. They don’t even fly to ORD. They are NOT going to add DTW to their roster.

First of all because DTW-MAN has be on the verge of being announced twice in the past and second of all it can be flown on a single aisle 757 and DTW is a major Delta hub.

DL has DTW adequately covered to the UK and Italy (and AMS as well).

I’ve never heard of DTW-MAN about to be announced twice! When at what airline?

ORD lost MAN after 32 years, the one time “best performing” TATL route per flight attendants (a reliable source). AA f—-ed this route up by using crap planes with poor reliability. By the time AA put a 788 on the route, competition and poor performance killed it. Yet, as others have said given the JV, it there was potential, BA would fly it. Obviously there is not and even UA won’t try it seasonally. Sad, but that’s reality in the real world.

3AWM wrote:

The point is MAN is never going offer a better choice than LHR

Again, I think you’ve missed my point as no where did I say MAN could offer more connections than LHR. I was talking about the strengths of its own catchment, and you seem to be denying MAN should have a 2 hour catchment as those on the fringes should go elsewhere, but it’s fully fine and acceptable for LHR to exploit a similar, if not bigger, catchment. It’s conflicting and contradictory logic.

I see a departure from BHX with a stop at destination I could fly direct to from LHR as something that had similar value so I would pay in step with the BA connection for that.

Whilst those who live close enough to MAN may be keen to see more direct flights and frequencies (as it is convenient for them) I think that higher yielding segment of the market who are faced with travelling 2hrs or more to get there would rather in turn see local options more convenient to them.

But is it not a flawed logic that every corner of the U.K. should have direct access to all destinations on their doorstep. This is the problem in the U.K., as there are not many countries that adopt this ‘fly long haul from your doorstep’ approach. The US has its main hubs, France has pretty much just Paris, Germany is primarily Frankfurt and Munich, Denmark Copenhagen and so on. Yet the U.K., in your eyes, would seem proposterous to have hubs, but instead go against an almost worldwide model and instead have a plethora of likely unprofitable direct flights to suit the odd little pockets of slightly higher yield. I just don’t get it, I mean, if BHX, NCL, etc all had these high yields that you talk of, and Manchester not, then why are we in the situation we are in, as it would have developed far differently to what we have.

User001 wrote:

With LHR basically full and no real room to build that hub operation, it means MAN could see a bit of growth. No point having a huge feed operation for 6 flights a day at MAN, so, long haul could see some growth.

While I’m not going to speculate on potential routes, it would be naive to think there would be no growth. Yes, MAN isn’t London so won’t be able to come anywhere near that scale, but, there will be reasonable growth, no doubt about it.

Assuming 9W's health stabilizes, MAN-DEL could be an excellent complement to the former's BOM-MAN service.

winginit wrote:

You have no idea whether CX will be successful on SEAHKG. SEAHKG also has access to HKG feed that DL did not. Let's get to the point:

Not to mention that CX has both home feed and AS's at SEA.

klm617 wrote:

With that being said it is a very curious thing that BA has not opened up ORD-MAN seems like that would be a perfect fit for them.

BA has no intercontinental service from MAN at present, and only two year-round international destinations.

nomorerjs wrote:

DL has DTW adequately covered to the UK and Italy (and AMS as well).

I’ve never heard of DTW-MAN about to be announced twice! When at what airline?

ORD lost MAN after 32 years, the one time “best performing” TATL route per flight attendants (a reliable source). AA f—-ed this route up by using crap planes with poor reliability. By the time AA put a 788 on the route, competition and poor performance killed it. Yet, as others have said given the JV, it there was potential, BA would fly it. Obviously there is not and even UA won’t try it seasonally. Sad, but that’s reality in the real world.

First of all let us say this any connection to the UK or Ireland requires back tracking with a connection in Amsterdam adding as much as 1 to 2 hours to the trip and second of all DTW-MAN is not just about the DTW O/D market it's about the connections to all points west that can be had at Detroit. DTW requires little or no back tracking from most of the Delta network. Here is the link that states that Detroit was in line to get a Manchester Nonstop. Again to link ORD with MAN you need a widebody to operate it with any kind of reliability not so out of Detroit it can be done with a 757.

Just because you didn't hear it doesn't mean it isn't true.

https://www.routesonline.com/news/29/br ... -for-2017/

Like you say Manchester has a reputation for being a yield cesspool, I think that's a bit unfair there is no smoke without fire andt it's clearly not a high yield destination, I'm just offering an explanation for that. Its also clear that Manchester picks up traffic from locations outside of it's natural cachement area that offer quite an inconvenient journey. It's also not particularly well connected to the national rail network.

Once you get over 2 hours drive from your start location it becomes more attractive to just connect to another hub through your local airport which is probably why they are losing out on high yielding business traffic from the wider cachement.

To add to that a lot of the traffic that goes through MAN is low yielding tourist traffic that has no choice other than to take that route.

The way I see it is VS has been experimenting with expanding MAN for a few years and 3 routes are doing well for VS at MAN, JFK, MCO and ATL.

Attempts to establish other routes such as SFO and BOS have largely been disappointing and LAS is decidedly a tourist only route.

VS would clearly like to get a firmer foothold in these routes and MAN is the obvious place to provide feed from the rest of the UK and this is probably part of the reason they have announced the acquisition of Flybe will be to shore up connections at MAN.

The top 3 routes are successful because they are the top US destination in terms of traffic overall, the top US holiday destination and Delta's biggest hub. Really this is all the connectivity that a secondary UK city needs. This can easily be dispersed amongst the other Flybe hub cities. They can do this with no connectivity penalty a the big Flybe bases have similar connections, BHX actually has some that MAN doesn't. They don't even need to offer these flights daily as you can connect between most of these airports through existing Flybe connections.

Delta's objective from VS is to feed their own network, why flog low yielding O&D routes and connections out of MAN when they can just replicate this successful formula out of other similar sized UK cities and sell those flights at a premium.

Once the AF/KLM investment completes it's likely to be more of the same as they are also going to sell one stop tickets under the Virgin name to Asia, Africa, South America.

This is the way Virgin is going, to be a feeder for Delta going west and AF/KLM going south and east with a handful of high yielding O&D destinations and some European and domestic connections provided by Connect.

The majority owning combo of Delta and AF/KLM have zero incentive to build up a cut price hub at MAN as it will canibalise their own hub traffic. It's all about feeding their existing hubs.

klm617 wrote:

RainerBoeing777 wrote:

Virgin Atlantic has recovered a little thanks to the participation with Delta Airlines have increased their services to North America, in addition to DL has several JV with other airlines that could be new markets for VS, with the Alliance with WestJet VS has the opportunity to rotate to Canada to destinations like Toronto (YYZ) and Vancouver (YVR), with sister Virgin Australia (VA) could venture on the LHR-PER route to Qantas has done quite well this route, between VS and VA could work on shared code and manage many connections from LHR to BNE, SYD and MEL via PER, other destinations could be Mexico City (MEX) where it has Aeromexico (AM), Seoul (ICN) that has Korean Air (KE) and even increase its frequencies to Shanghai (PVG) where is the largest hub of China Eastern (MU)

On the part of Alitalia, Delta (DL) will do the same strategy with VS more expansion to North America, where it could add new routes such as Atlanta (ATL) and Seattle (SEA) or grow in strong Delta Hubs where it already flies like Los Angeles (LAX ), New York (JFK), and Boston (BOS), also expand in high demand markets such as San Francisco (SFO)

Detroit is a major hub for Delta and would be a good route for AZ to add.

If first NW and then DL have kept the DTW FCO soute seasonal during the last 20 years, how can AZ make it year-round, considering the fact that has no financial snrength to acquire additional capacity?

klm617 wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

klm617 wrote:

I would say that ATL is marginal as well. The only reason it gets served is because of the ATL hub and it's not even daily . MAN-ATL if it were a stand alone route wouldn't even be on anyone's radar like LAS, MCO and NYC are.

I don’t get the obsession with DTW-MAN. They fly to only a small handful of US cities. And mostly tourist areas. They don’t even fly to ORD. They are NOT going to add DTW to their roster.

First of all because DTW-MAN has be on the verge of being announced twice in the past and second of all it can be flown on a single aisle 757 and DTW is a major Delta hub.

In all honesty “has been” doesn’t mean jack. Have you seen the destinations flown from MAN? Tourist destinations and NYC and BOS. Yes. They fly to ATL, that’s a giant hub compared to DTW.

MAH4546 wrote:

Italy is not London. Alitalia will in no way expand in any significant way it's North American coverage. Just New York, Miami and Los Angeles cover half of U.S.-Italy demand. Maybe San Francisco and Montreal. That's all that's really left for it.

You're right, although I'm still surprised AZ can't make EWR work.
But to the point that others have said, once/if/should AZ becomes more connected with DL (meaning that DL is sharing revenue and profits on more than just the TATL routes and starts to have a vested interest in the overall profits of AZ) I would expect to see AZ run some routes that are now run by DL on a seasonal basis (e.g. winter season to ATL) if DL feels that AZ would make more money running that flight than FCO-XXX. See how VS has changed around ops for similar reasons....running SEA instead of DL, or moving the DXB flight to BOS. Delta is going to nudge AZ to operate in a way that keeps its more profitable.

3AWM wrote:

Like you say Manchester has a reputation for being a yield cesspool, I think that's a bit unfair there is no smoke without fire andt it's clearly not a high yield destination, I'm just offering an explanation for that.

To add to that a lot of the traffic that goes through MAN is low yielding tourist traffic that has no choice other than to take that route.

The majority owning combo of Delta and AF/KLM have zero incentive to build up a cut price hub at MAN as it will canibalise their own hub traffic. It's all about feeding their existing hubs.

Im sorry 3AWM, but this feels to me that you are explaining your reasons for for a problem you perceive exists (albeit based on “no smoke without fire” speculation) but doesn’t actually exist.

The vast majority of air travel globally is leisure / tourist traffic, and that global pattern is repeated at MAN.

It is a stated objective by Connect that the purpose of the purchase of BE is to feed VS at LHR and MAN. That is why this subject matter is being discussed, it is not being discussed as a result of any “wishful thinking”.

No one is expecting a VS operation at MAN to seek to cannibalise or emulate VS/DL’s operation at LHR, or KL’s operation at AMS or AF’s operation at CDG. Whatever they have planned is likely intended as a complimentary offering, in a similar way to EI’s offering at DUB compliments BA’s operation at LHR.

To add to that a lot of the traffic that goes through MAN is low yielding tourist traffic that has no choice other than to take that route.

There it is again, just snippets like that prove my point a lot more than long winded posts can do.

And thus I'll leave it there. As they say, ignorance is bliss.

N717TW wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

Italy is not London. Alitalia will in no way expand in any significant way it's North American coverage. Just New York, Miami and Los Angeles cover half of U.S.-Italy demand. Maybe San Francisco and Montreal. That's all that's really left for it.

You're right, although I'm still surprised AZ can't make EWR work.
But to the point that others have said, once/if/should AZ becomes more connected with DL (meaning that DL is sharing revenue and profits on more than just the TATL routes and starts to have a vested interest in the overall profits of AZ) I would expect to see AZ run some routes that are now run by DL on a seasonal basis (e.g. winter season to ATL) if DL feels that AZ would make more money running that flight than FCO-XXX. See how VS has changed around ops for similar reasons....running SEA instead of DL, or moving the DXB flight to BOS. Delta is going to nudge AZ to operate in a way that keeps its more profitable.

According to estimates AZ is losing 500M€ out of a revenue of 3B€ in 2018 and previous years were just about the same. No doubt TATL operations are profitable due to JV with DL and AFKLM, where else do you think are the profit to share? If DL thinks AZ can add profitable TATL routes why they do not just allow them so that they can share their profit?

User001 wrote:

The issue for AA wasn’t currency, it was the fact they ran the route into the ground. When the flight was cancelled 2 times out of 10, then significantly delayed for 7 of the 8 remaining trips out of 10, it’s a no brainier pax would jump ship. I mean, would you put up with that? Rather than fight, AA ran.

It is completely unreasonable to state that with as drastic of a change as we saw with the GBP/USD exchange rate that currency wasn't a notable contributing factor to the suspension of the route. As you said, they ran it for years and then the FX headwinds hit and they suspend it and you're saying currency wasn't the issue?

User001 wrote:

Then we go on to the whole ‘USB3 and the conversion rate’ argument.

Yes - let's do that.

User001 wrote:

The USB3 is UA, DL and AA.

We're off to a good start.

User001 wrote:

UA-increasing capacity by a significant amount, both in the ‘good’ summer months and now also in the ‘leaner’ winter months. With this, there is a very significant increase in premium seats too. Where is their ‘obvious FX issue?’

Hm. I noticed you didn't provide any, you know, facts to back your argument there or contextualize that while United are increasing capacity they're still well below where they were pre-Brexit vote. Let's take a look at the schedule shall we? You know, data?



So again, UA has increased capacity since things bottomed out in 2017, but it is clear as day that those cuts that lead to the 2017 trough were a direct result of the FX headwinds tied directly to the Brexit vote.

User001 wrote:

DL- part owns VS, profit shares on VS in the same way the BA/AA JV do

They don't quite (AA and BA only share revenue whereas DL and VS share profits), but please proceed.

User001 wrote:

and guess what, VS are increasing significantly too. Be under no illusion. It may say ‘virgin atlantic’ on the side of the plane, but, it’s Delta running the show. And thus, DL seem to have no issue with their part of the profits amongst this whole ‘FX issue’.

As has been mentioned, VS don't need to convert their GBP revenues into USD, so they're not impacted by the GBP/USD FX headwinds... that should be obvious, and is a perfectly rational reason for DL to be subbing their own capacity for VS metal capacity. You're reinforcing my point here.

User001 wrote:

Then we come to AA- they still run PHL so clearly no issue with their ‘FX issue there’. ORD was cut, but, had the issues described above.

PHL-MAN capacity has been reduced, which you'd see if you provided data. Don't worry, I've got you covered:

User001 wrote:

So, ‘all of the USB3 having issues with Crap secondary U.K. routes’, but, 2 of the 3 are still expanding. 2/3rds. 66%. Whichever way you put it, still growing.

Interesting definition of 'growing' that you've taken on there. Allow me to again post my previously posted graph of the USB3's nonstop capacity between the US and MAN:



Thanks for playing.

Youve proven nothing there winginit. What a waste of bandwidth!

User001 wrote:

Youve proven nothing there winginit. What a waste of bandwidth!

No you’re right seems the data did the proving for me eh? Shame you still have none to share. Chin up.

AA flew from ORD to Manchester with a 767-200ER in the mid 1980's. It was also flying to Brussels, Paris, Zurich, Munich and others. AA was at the time developing its international routes from ORD with 767, many were marginal at best but AA was new to the Atlantic establishing itself in the market willing to finance losers. It would eventually get to London from ORD when TWA sold their ORD to LHR route to AA. AA was in the 1980's the biggest international airline in Chicago as United with no flights to Europe or Asia was dealing with its Pan AM Asia routes.

ORD to Manchester was flown for years by AA, when USairways merged with AA the dynamic for Manchester flights changed and the PHL flight became more desirable for its east coast location. When AA began the ORD to Manchester route it wanted a presence in the USA to UK market which was very limited for AA at the time. After AA acquired the entire TWA Heathrow portfolio and AA was able to fly nonstop from ORD to LHR the need for the Manchester route was lower. It would continue to be flown for many more years.

So are people suggesting that VS should expand their LH flights from the regions such as BHX, NCL and EDI? To which destinations exactly? Can these airports really support a regular A330? There's a reason the US carriers have retreated from these Airports when they were operating smaller 767/757 aircraft.
TUI have the regional holiday market tied up, and to a lessor extent TCX as well. I highly doubt there is enough room for TUI and VS to operate holiday destinations from these Airports. Yields would be shot in the competition. You have added costs of crew bases and offices and positioning aircraft around the network.

I also can't see how adding regional airports will attract enough high yielding customers to fill these cabins on a regular basis. If you're operating a hub you're bringing in customers from all corners and widening the catchment to fill the same amount of seats. Would it really be possible to fill 19/31* Upper and 36/48* PE economy from BHX and NCL?
(*Depending on A330-200 or A330-300)

The way I see it, split the UK in two. The 2 hour drive from London, covering South Wales/Bristol/Bournemouth in the South - Midlands across to Norfolk and the Southeast. This would be the catchment for VS in LHR/LGW.
The Southwest is fed from NQY to MAN/LHR so opens both options, and EXT to MAN.
MAN's own catchment would be North Midlands, Central UK, North Wales across to Yorkshire.

BE/Connect then opens up additional catchment, which I'm sure VS would love to get feed into LHR but it's not going to happen on a big scale because of slots. So feeding into MAN you have EXT/NQY/BHD/GLA/EDI/ABZ that have few, if any options of direct flights to the US.
Looking at BE's route map, it could also open new markets for VS, namely French regions. With a tie up with KL/AF, customers could be routed through MAN if the timings are right. BE currently flies MAN-LRH/NTE/RNS/TLS/LYS, again most of which have few direct TATL options.

klm617 wrote:

nomorerjs wrote:

DL has DTW adequately covered to the UK and Italy (and AMS as well).

I’ve never heard of DTW-MAN about to be announced twice! When at what airline?

ORD lost MAN after 32 years, the one time “best performing” TATL route per flight attendants (a reliable source). AA f—-ed this route up by using crap planes with poor reliability. By the time AA put a 788 on the route, competition and poor performance killed it. Yet, as others have said given the JV, it there was potential, BA would fly it. Obviously there is not and even UA won’t try it seasonally. Sad, but that’s reality in the real world.

First of all let us say this any connection to the UK or Ireland requires back tracking with a connection in Amsterdam adding as much as 1 to 2 hours to the trip and second of all DTW-MAN is not just about the DTW O/D market it's about the connections to all points west that can be had at Detroit. DTW requires little or no back tracking from most of the Delta network. Here is the link that states that Detroit was in line to get a Manchester Nonstop. Again to link ORD with MAN you need a widebody to operate it with any kind of reliability not so out of Detroit it can be done with a 757.

Just because you didn't hear it doesn't mean it isn't true.

https://www.routesonline.com/news/29/br ... -for-2017/

The problem with DTW-MAN is it is growing quicker compared to other European destinations, that's great.

However, it's still very premature, and any indication of any growth will have to take some time to indicate that the growth will continue.

About 6 years ago, DTW-KEF was in this same situation, where there was a sudden upswing in traffic. It grew rather quickly and it took about 5 years to get a nonstop on a 200 seat narrowbody. That still doesnt do the job since majority of the plane is heading to London, which equates to maybe 20-35 people ending their journey in Iceland.

I think MAN is in that same situation, however we cant make conclusions yet because its premature and the market has an opportunity to crash, and become nothing like it was a few years ago. Not too mention, the dynamic is different because the hub is located stateside as opposed to across the pond like KEF is.

MAN doesnt have a strong Midwest market, that's what makes it hard for DL to even deploy a 757 on the route. Let's give it 2 more years before discussing DTW/ORD-MAN as the market dynamics are most likely to change due to political/economical climates in both the US and UK.

spannacomo wrote:

N717TW wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

Italy is not London. Alitalia will in no way expand in any significant way it's North American coverage. Just New York, Miami and Los Angeles cover half of U.S.-Italy demand. Maybe San Francisco and Montreal. That's all that's really left for it.

You're right, although I'm still surprised AZ can't make EWR work.
But to the point that others have said, once/if/should AZ becomes more connected with DL (meaning that DL is sharing revenue and profits on more than just the TATL routes and starts to have a vested interest in the overall profits of AZ) I would expect to see AZ run some routes that are now run by DL on a seasonal basis (e.g. winter season to ATL) if DL feels that AZ would make more money running that flight than FCO-XXX. See how VS has changed around ops for similar reasons....running SEA instead of DL, or moving the DXB flight to BOS. Delta is going to nudge AZ to operate in a way that keeps its more profitable.

According to estimates AZ is losing 500M€ out of a revenue of 3B€ in 2018 and previous years were just about the same. No doubt TATL operations are profitable due to JV with DL and AFKLM, where else do you think are the profit to share? If DL thinks AZ can add profitable TATL routes why they do not just allow them so that they can share their profit?

Not add; replace.
The point is that AZ is running flights that don't make money, so rather than operate FCO-JNB in the summer (let's assume its a "money pit" for this illustration as I have no basis for that) it would make sense for AZ to operate seasonal FCO-DTW instead of DL. Now DL is not only getting the JV profits but is also getting the benefit of AZ not losing money on another long haul route.

flymco753 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

nomorerjs wrote:

DL has DTW adequately covered to the UK and Italy (and AMS as well).

I’ve never heard of DTW-MAN about to be announced twice! When at what airline?

ORD lost MAN after 32 years, the one time “best performing” TATL route per flight attendants (a reliable source). AA f—-ed this route up by using crap planes with poor reliability. By the time AA put a 788 on the route, competition and poor performance killed it. Yet, as others have said given the JV, it there was potential, BA would fly it. Obviously there is not and even UA won’t try it seasonally. Sad, but that’s reality in the real world.

First of all let us say this any connection to the UK or Ireland requires back tracking with a connection in Amsterdam adding as much as 1 to 2 hours to the trip and second of all DTW-MAN is not just about the DTW O/D market it's about the connections to all points west that can be had at Detroit. DTW requires little or no back tracking from most of the Delta network. Here is the link that states that Detroit was in line to get a Manchester Nonstop. Again to link ORD with MAN you need a widebody to operate it with any kind of reliability not so out of Detroit it can be done with a 757.

Just because you didn't hear it doesn't mean it isn't true.

https://www.routesonline.com/news/29/br ... -for-2017/

The problem with DTW-MAN is it is growing quicker compared to other European destinations, that's great.

However, it's still very premature, and any indication of any growth will have to take some time to indicate that the growth will continue.

About 6 years ago, DTW-KEF was in this same situation, where there was a sudden upswing in traffic. It grew rather quickly and it took about 5 years to get a nonstop on a 200 seat narrowbody. That still doesnt do the job since majority of the plane is heading to London, which equates to maybe 20-35 people ending their journey in Iceland.

I think MAN is in that same situation, however we cant make conclusions yet because its premature and the market has an opportunity to crash, and become nothing like it was a few years ago. Not too mention, the dynamic is different because the hub is located stateside as opposed to across the pond like KEF is.

MAN doesnt have a strong Midwest market, that's what makes it hard for DL to even deploy a 757 on the route. Let's give it 2 more years before discussing DTW/ORD-MAN as the market dynamics are most likely to change due to political/economical climates in both the US and UK.

The problem is though when you wait you leave a lot to chance. DTW for some reason is always content to just sit in the sidelines rather than mounting and aggressive marketing campaign to get new flights. Actually right now is the right time to add DTW-MAN because there is no one operating it out of the Midwest and Delta could move all their westward connections over Detroit giving MAN originating passenger a better travel experience connecting in Detroit rather than ATL or JFK. DTW-KEF was just as viable 3 or 4 years ago as it was the day WW started it it is just that the airport did not do a good enough marketing job at landing the flight.

N717TW wrote:

spannacomo wrote:

N717TW wrote:

You're right, although I'm still surprised AZ can't make EWR work.
But to the point that others have said, once/if/should AZ becomes more connected with DL (meaning that DL is sharing revenue and profits on more than just the TATL routes and starts to have a vested interest in the overall profits of AZ) I would expect to see AZ run some routes that are now run by DL on a seasonal basis (e.g. winter season to ATL) if DL feels that AZ would make more money running that flight than FCO-XXX. See how VS has changed around ops for similar reasons....running SEA instead of DL, or moving the DXB flight to BOS. Delta is going to nudge AZ to operate in a way that keeps its more profitable.

According to estimates AZ is losing 500M€ out of a revenue of 3B€ in 2018 and previous years were just about the same. No doubt TATL operations are profitable due to JV with DL and AFKLM, where else do you think are the profit to share? If DL thinks AZ can add profitable TATL routes why they do not just allow them so that they can share their profit?

Not add; replace.
The point is that AZ is running flights that don't make money, so rather than operate FCO-JNB in the summer (let's assume its a "money pit" for this illustration as I have no basis for that) it would make sense for AZ to operate seasonal FCO-DTW instead of DL. Now DL is not only getting the JV profits but is also getting the benefit of AZ not losing money on another long haul route.

Sorry but I can't see how DL would benefit from letting AZ replace them on TATL routes, what would they do with the resulting planes, would they dismiss them? AZ would benefit but not enough to be profitable.

spannacomo wrote:

N717TW wrote:

spannacomo wrote:

According to estimates AZ is losing 500M€ out of a revenue of 3B€ in 2018 and previous years were just about the same. No doubt TATL operations are profitable due to JV with DL and AFKLM, where else do you think are the profit to share? If DL thinks AZ can add profitable TATL routes why they do not just allow them so that they can share their profit?

Not add; replace.
The point is that AZ is running flights that don't make money, so rather than operate FCO-JNB in the summer (let's assume its a "money pit" for this illustration as I have no basis for that) it would make sense for AZ to operate seasonal FCO-DTW instead of DL. Now DL is not only getting the JV profits but is also getting the benefit of AZ not losing money on another long haul route.

Sorry but I can't see how DL would benefit from letting AZ replace them on TATL routes, what would they do with the resulting planes, would they dismiss them? AZ would benefit but not enough to be profitable.

I have to agree Delta is better suited to operate DTW-FCO now for additional capacity yes perhaps if DL/AZ wanted to go 10 weekly in the summer AZ could pick up the extra capacity or even start DTW-MXP 3 weekly.

caaardiff wrote:

So are people suggesting that VS should expand their LH flights from the regions such as BHX, NCL and EDI? To which destinations exactly? Can these airports really support a regular A330? There's a reason the US carriers have retreated from these Airports when they were operating smaller 767/757 aircraft.

In the case of EDI, I'd be surprised if VS start MCO for as long as they continue to operate GLA-MCO seasonally.

9W reduces its operations on the Mumbai (BOM) - London (LHR) route from 3 daily flights to 2 daily flights and cancels the Mumbai route (BOM) - Manchester (MAN) is a VS opportunity to return to Mumbai, apart from the summer of 2020 launch Sao Paulo (GRU) , the tactics of VS to expand more than anything is where this significant presence of DL or destinations of very high demand as happened with Tel Aviv (DL)

The potential destinations for VS in the future I see Seoul, Vancouver, Toronto and Mexico City


https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/283466/jet-airways-closes-manchester-reservations-from-late-march-2019/
https://twitter.com/Airlineroute/status/1108231391521599489
https://twitter.com/VirginAtlantic/status/1108308636672118784

VS has just announced GRU as from 2020 with the 787.
1st ever company's regular service to South America:

https://www.virginatlantic.com/gb/en/media-centre/press-releases/south-america-route-launch.html

RainerBoeing777 wrote:

9W reduces its operations on the Mumbai (BOM) - London (LHR) route from 3 daily flights to 2 daily flights and cancels the Mumbai route (BOM) - Manchester (MAN) is a VS opportunity to return to Mumbai, apart from the summer of 2020 launch Sao Paulo (GRU) , the tactics of VS to expand more than anything is where this significant presence of DL or destinations of very high demand as happened with Tel Aviv (DL)

The potential destinations for VS in the future I see Seoul, Vancouver, Toronto and Mexico City


https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/283466/jet-airways-closes-manchester-reservations-from-late-march-2019/
https://twitter.com/Airlineroute/status/1108231391521599489
https://twitter.com/VirginAtlantic/status/1108308636672118784

Virgin Atlantic have previously flown to both Toronto and Vancouver what makes you think that they would return!

I don't see Virgin Atlantic flying to Mexico City, Aeromexico operate MEX-LHR daily and British Airways have reduced their flights to less than daily, I don't see the market having space for a third airline.

The Koreans are very loyal to their home carriers as in Asiana and Korean Air and British Airways only use a B788 on LHR-ICN, again I don't see the market having space for a fourth airline on the route especially as the point of sale is predominantly originating from the Korean end.

It's anyone's guess where Virgin Atlantic will further expand, I didn't see GRU coming and I would have thought that VS might have announced EZE before GRU but it's always surprised me that VS have never previously flown to Brazil, I was half expecting them to announce GIG prior to the Olympic Games being held in the city.

Cunard wrote:

RainerBoeing777 wrote:

9W reduces its operations on the Mumbai (BOM) - London (LHR) route from 3 daily flights to 2 daily flights and cancels the Mumbai route (BOM) - Manchester (MAN) is a VS opportunity to return to Mumbai, apart from the summer of 2020 launch Sao Paulo (GRU) , the tactics of VS to expand more than anything is where this significant presence of DL or destinations of very high demand as happened with Tel Aviv (DL)

The potential destinations for VS in the future I see Seoul, Vancouver, Toronto and Mexico City


https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/283466/jet-airways-closes-manchester-reservations-from-late-march-2019/
https://twitter.com/Airlineroute/status/1108231391521599489
https://twitter.com/VirginAtlantic/status/1108308636672118784

Virgin Atlantic have previously flown to both Toronto and Vancouver what makes you think that they would return!

I don't see Virgin Atlantic flying to Mexico City, Aeromexico operate MEX-LHR daily and British Airways have reduced their flights to less than daily, I don't see the market having space for a third airline.

The Koreans are very loyal to their home carriers as in Asiana and Korean Air and British Airways only use a B788 on LHR-ICN, again I don't see the market having space for a fourth airline on the route especially as the point of sale is predominantly originating from the Korean end.

It's anyone's guess where Virgin Atlantic will further expand, I didn't see GRU coming and I would have thought that VS might have announced EZE before GRU but it's always surprised me that VS have never previously flown to Brazil, I was half expecting them to announce GIG prior to the Olympic Games being held in the city.

VS never flew to YYZ, flew YVR and now it's different, that counts on the participation of DL, VS is going to expand where they count strongly on DL and its JV partners, VS on the North has expanded on ATL, SEA, LAX, BOS, MCO, JFK where it has great DL connections, the same point because they launch GRU because they have the participation of GOL

The Mexico - Europe market has increased enough CDG-MEX this summer will have 3 daily flights, IB and AM continue to increase MAD-MEX, AM launched BCN, AZ in high season flies daily, BA reduces only reduces this route in winter season, VS Having connections with Aeromexico clear that you can fly this route with multiple connections to Cancun, Puerto Vallarta, etc. would be more profitable than BA flight

In the same way ICN has increased the capacity between Seoul and Europe and with participation of KE in shared codes easily VS can fly this route

... and other than that VS has more profitable models with the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350

I can 100% assure you that Virgin Atlantic did indeed previously operate to Toronto.

VS flew from LGW to YYZ for a very short period but the flight was cancelled shortly after 9/11, it was flown with a B742.

CDG to MEX is a more mature market than LHR to MEX and it can probably warrant upto three flights a day, I'm not convinced that LHR could!

I'm fully aware of the fact that VS have the B789 and the A350 shortly entering the fleet but that doesn't necessarily make the likes of Mexico City becoming a potential destination.

VS should look at reinstating some of their former destinations such as Cape Town, Mumbai and Tokyo before looking at opening up destinations such as Mexico City.

Virgin Atlantic have a rather long list of former long haul destinations which are,

Accra, Cancun, Cape Town, Chicago, Detroit, Dubai (soon), Kingston, Mauritius, Mumbai, Nairobi, Nassau, Sydney, Tokyo NRT, Toronto, Vancouver.

Thanks for that it's appreciated

Isn't being 100% correct an amazing feeling

I got 97% on my grades on my Travel and Tourism diploma many years ago that was an awesome feeling as well

behramjee wrote:

If VS have spare WB aircraft from W19 onwards out of MAN, I would suggest they study Manchester-Islamabad 4 times per week nonstop using an A333 or B789.

The p2p demand alone on this sector last year was 277,000 pax round trip and yields are average year round but very high between 15jun-15sep and 01dec-20jan. Cargo in the belly will be full year round in both directions too ie 10 tons each way.

It will also provide decent feed to its own and DLs TATL flying.

Subject to the rate the B789 availability improves (alleviation of engine issues) and A35K delivery, versus withdraw of the A346 / B744 there might be some slack in the fleet.

I think it is a matter of time before VS start flying east from MAN. DEL was speculated (around the time the A332s were acquired) and I had not considered Islamabad as a possibility.

However, if they do look east from MAN a higher priority might be BOM (in light of 9W’s predicament), DEL and BKK (the latter two being major unserved markets - I suspect larger than ISB?).

VS appear to be in expansion mode, but who knows what their plans really are - I don’t think many saw South America returning - so it’ll be interesting to see how they progress over the coming months and years.

DobboDobbo wrote:

behramjee wrote:

If VS have spare WB aircraft from W19 onwards out of MAN, I would suggest they study Manchester-Islamabad 4 times per week nonstop using an A333 or B789.

The p2p demand alone on this sector last year was 277,000 pax round trip and yields are average year round but very high between 15jun-15sep and 01dec-20jan. Cargo in the belly will be full year round in both directions too ie 10 tons each way.

It will also provide decent feed to its own and DLs TATL flying.

Subject to the rate the B789 availability improves (alleviation of engine issues) and A35K delivery, versus withdraw of the A346 / B744 there might be some slack in the fleet.

I think it is a matter of time before VS start flying east from MAN. DEL was speculated (around the time the A332s were acquired) and I had not considered Islamabad as a possibility.

However, if they do look east from MAN a higher priority might be BOM (in light of 9W’s predicament), DEL and BKK (the latter two being major unserved markets - I suspect larger than ISB?).

VS appear to be in expansion mode, but who knows what their plans really are - I don’t think many saw South America returning - so it’ll be interesting to see how they progress over the coming months and years.

Regarding your last paragraph.

Virgin Atlantic aren't returning to South America, Virgin Atlantic have never flown to South America on a scheduled basis in their entire history, São Paulo will be the first ever destination for Virgin Atlantic in South America.

Cunard wrote:

DobboDobbo wrote:

behramjee wrote:

If VS have spare WB aircraft from W19 onwards out of MAN, I would suggest they study Manchester-Islamabad 4 times per week nonstop using an A333 or B789.

The p2p demand alone on this sector last year was 277,000 pax round trip and yields are average year round but very high between 15jun-15sep and 01dec-20jan. Cargo in the belly will be full year round in both directions too ie 10 tons each way.

It will also provide decent feed to its own and DLs TATL flying.

Subject to the rate the B789 availability improves (alleviation of engine issues) and A35K delivery, versus withdraw of the A346 / B744 there might be some slack in the fleet.

I think it is a matter of time before VS start flying east from MAN. DEL was speculated (around the time the A332s were acquired) and I had not considered Islamabad as a possibility.

However, if they do look east from MAN a higher priority might be BOM (in light of 9W’s predicament), DEL and BKK (the latter two being major unserved markets - I suspect larger than ISB?).

VS appear to be in expansion mode, but who knows what their plans really are - I don’t think many saw South America returning - so it’ll be interesting to see how they progress over the coming months and years.

Regarding your last paragraph.

Virgin Atlantic aren't returning to South America, Virgin Atlantic have never flown to South America on a scheduled basis in their entire history, São Paulo will be the first ever destination for Virgin Atlantic in South America.

Many thanks for the clarification (I did not know that and I stand corrected!).